Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL

TYNE TUNNEL BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Qaeen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended (on recommittal), considered.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILLS

Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended until the Summer Adjournment:—As regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords:—When Amendments thereto are intended to be proposed by the Promoters, a copy of such Amendments to be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and Notice thereof given not later than the day before that on which the Amendments made by the House of Lords are proposed to be taken into consideration.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOWEY) BILL

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has raised this matter before. Cannot this question of dealing with Private Business at this time be looked at again? Cannot we have an extension to Question Time when Private Business takes so long?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot deal with that point now. The hon. Member realises that any time that we can save before 2·45 p.m. is an accretion to Question Time. It is not the other way round.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERY LIMITS

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding negotiations for an agreed off-shore fisheries limit.

Mr. Crosland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the widespread uncertainty in the fishing industry consequent on the failure of the Geneva Conference, he will now make a statement about his recent discussions with other Governments on the question of fishing limits.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he is aware that under conditions in which one country fixes a three-mile zone and another a twelve-mile zone unilaterally for fishing, and pending a satisfactory solution to the problem, the lives of United Kingdom fishermen are in constant danger and the cost of fishing patrols increases; and if he will seek a further meeting of the United Nations Committee on the Law of the Sea to reconsider the matter; and

(2) if he is aware that, as a result of the failure of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the problem of the area of territorial waters round Iceland is still unsettled, and that the arrest of trawlers consequent on this is worsening the relationship between the two countries; and what recent efforts he has made to secure a conference of both Governments with a view to arriving at a mutual agreement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the problems resulting from the failure of the recent Conference on the Law of the Sea. There is, unfortunately, no reason to think that if a further conference were convened it would be more successful. We are, however, continuing consultations with other countries through diplomatic channels on the question of stabilising fishery relations generally. We remain anxious to reach a settlement with Iceland and are continuing our efforts to this end. I have nothing to add to replies already given about our discussions with Norway.

Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend realise that time is getting very short? Does he agree that the trawler owners have done all they can, even by suspending their best skippers, to keep out of the twelve-mile limit? But the truce ends on 12th August. After that date, will they have full naval protection in fishing up to the internationally recognised limits?

Mr. Allan: The Government are appreciative of the action taken by the fishing industry in trying to avoid incidents. I am afraid that I am not in a position to say what will happen after 12th August if the restrictions are removed.

Mr. Crosland: As this is possibly the last opportunity we shall have to question the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, does not the Minister think that he ought to be a little more forthcoming? Does he not realise that, if no further agreement is reached, the situation on 12th August will be extremely serious in the main fishing ports? Will he at least tell us whether he proposes to make another statement to the industry and country before 12th August?

Mr. Allan: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in touch with the industry over all these matters, and will continue to keep in touch with it, and negotiations are proceeding. There is no reason, therefore, to be too despairing about the position after 12th August.

Mr. Fletcher: Can we not have a categorical assurance that, in the absence of an agreement, Her Majesty's Government will protect British trawling fleets exercising their rights within the limits recognised at present by international law?

Mr. Allan: At the moment, Her Majesty's ships are patrolling outside the twelve-mile limit in order to avoid incidents, but without prejudice in any way to our legal rights. What happens after 12th August is hypothetical and must depend on the circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES AND CUBA

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, in accordance with Article 35


of the Charter, bring the dispute between the United States of America and Cuba to the attention of the Security Council of the United Nations.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of Sate for Foreign Affairs whether, in relation to the dispute between the United States of America and Cuba, he will draw the attention of the Security Council of the United Nations to the need for the strict observance of the provisions of the Charter relating to non-interference in the internal affairs of member-States.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The Security Council decided on 19th July to adjourn the consideration of this question pending the receipt of a report from the Organisation of American States. The latter were invited to lend their assistance towards the achievement of a peaceful solution of the present situation
in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations".
All other States were urged in the mean-time to refrain from any action which might increase the existing tensions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Foreign Secretary remember what happened when an appeal from Guatemala was referred by the Security Council to the Organisation of American States? Does he remember then saying in the House that such a thing must never happen again?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to remind me of my actual words and their context. I think it is in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter that this procedure should be adopted. In this case, I think that the States of Latin America are more likely to be able to handle this situation.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that last time there was something very like a sponsored revolution, which was protected by this procedure? Will he make sure that the sane thing does not happen now?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not quite certain where the sponsorship comes from at present.

Mr. Swingler: Does the Foreign Secretary recall what happened in Guatemala, quite apart from what happened in Suez and other places? In view of certain statements and certain comments made about what might happen in the next few weeks in relation to Cuba, will not he carry out the suggestion made in my Question of drawing the attention of the parties concerned to the need for observing non-interference in the affairs of Member States?

Mr. Lloyd: That is exactly what the resolution says. It asks people in the meantime to refrain from any action which might increase the tension. I would point out that no votes were cast against this resolution; nine members of the Security Council voted for it and two—the Soviet Union and Poland—abstained.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT (UNITED KINGDOM BASES)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received assurances from the United States Government, similar to the assurances given by the United States Government to Norway and Pakistan, that no reconnaissance flights over Soviet territory or Eastern Europe will be made in future by United States aircraft from bases in Great Britain.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to previous answers on this subject, and, in particular, to that given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12th July.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do we understand from that reply that we have had such an assurance from the United States?

Mr. Lloyd: No. What the right hon. Gentleman may take from the reply is that we are satisfied with the assurance which has been given by the President of the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, he will ask the West German Government to end agreement


between German and French firms on joint production of plutonium, lithium and other raw materials for atomic and hydrogen bombs.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. It is no part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's function to serve as a channel for such a request. In any case, I have no evidence of such an agreement.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Foreign Secretary study the Frankfurter Rundschau of 16th February and Der Spiegel of last August which reported secret agreements between the German and French Defence Ministries covering scientific, technical and financial co-operation in the production of the French bombs?

Mr. Lloyd: I am quite satisfied with the assurance which we have received that there is no German participation in the French nuclear programme.

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that no instructions will be given to the United Kingdom representative at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to support any proposal put before the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which has as its object the provision to the West German Government of control over nuclear missiles, such as the Polaris with a range of 1,500 miles, unless and until the subject has been debated in this House.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained very clearly on 14th July that there is no question of the West German Government being given control of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman also confirm that there is no question under any N.A.T.O. arrangements of the Polaris missile being supplied to West German forces in such a way that they can have independent use of it?

Mr. Lloyd: There is no such proposal, and I know of no intention to put such a proposal forward.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that reports in The Times and other newspapers today state that M. Spaak has been discussing the possibility of giving the French Gov

ernment outright control of Polaris missiles, to which they can fit their own warheads? Would not this constitute a dangerous precedent for West Germany?

Mr. Lloyd: This question deals with West Germany. I am not responsible for discussions which it may be alleged that M. Spaak has had with the French Government.

Mr. John Hall: Is it not a fact that the West German Government do not want Polaris?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not had any information that they want Polaris.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPE (DISENGAGEMENT)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the ending of conscription in Great Britain and the reduction of manpower in the Soviet armed forces, he will reconsider proposals for some form of disengagement in Europe.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I dealt with this matter at length during the foreign affairs debate on 10th and 11th February and I have nothing to add to what I then said.

Mr. Allaun: In view of the smaller armies in Britain and in Russia, would not a withdrawal of forces have mutual advantages and, therefore, be a likely subject for agreement?

Mr. Lloyd: We have debated the theory of disengagement on many occasions. To draw the forces of the Great Powers apart and to leave only the small countries in the middle would, I think, add to insecurity and not to security. I developed that point in the debate to which I referred. I think that the best approach to this matter is under the heading of anti-surprise attack measures. That is the way in which we hoped to approach it at the Ten-Power Disarmament Conference, and we are sorry that that Conference has been suspended.

Mr. Healey: I understood the Foreign Secretary to say, in the debate to which he has referred, that Her Majesty's Government had certain proposals in relation to the prevention of surprise attack. Is it the intention to put


these proposals forward, either through diplomatic channels or otherwise, to the Soviet Union and its allies?

Mr. Lloyd: Proposals were put forward under this head in 1957.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAUDI ARABIA

Diplomatic Relations

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the difficulties which at present prevent Her Majesty's Government from recognising the Royal Government of Saudi Arabia.

Mr. R. Allan: So far from failing to recognise the Saudi Arabian Government, Her Majesty's Government have, on many occasions, made it clear that they would welcome the restoration of the diplomatic relations broken off by the Saudi Arabian Government in November, 1956.

Mr. Yates: Will the Minister tell us what reasons the Saudi Government are giving to Her Majesty's Government at present for refusing to have diplomatic relations with us?

Mr. Allan: The Saudi Government are making pre-conditions which are not acceptable to us.

Mr. Yates: That is all very well, but we should like to know what they are.

Mr. Allan: The House already knows that they refer to the Buraimi dispute.

Buraimi Dispute

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reasons Her Majesty's Government have refused the offer of the Royal Saudi Arabian Government to submit the Buraimi dispute to the United Nations or the International Court at The Hague, bearing in mind that no oil has been found in the area.

Mr. R. Allan: My hon. Friend is, presumably, referring to the Saudi Arabian suggestions for a resumption of the arbitration procedure which broke down as a result of the actions of the Saudi Arabian Government in 1955. Although Her Majesty's Government are anxious to see an early settlement of this dispute and are, in fact, engaged at the present

time in informal discussions with the Saudi Arabian authorities to this end, they do not favour a return to the arbitration procedure for the reasons which were explained to the House on 26th October, 1955.

Mr. Yates: Will the Minister kindly tell us how long it will take the Government to put this arbitration before either the United Nations or The Hague? Is this not a case of Naboth's vineyard? Would he also bear in mind that many hon. Members on this side of the House, and many people in my constituency, hope that in future the Foreign Secretary will answer our questions at this Dispatch Box?

Mr. Allan: The reference to Naboth's vineyard indicates some idea of jealousy or covetousness on the part of Her Majesty's Government, but in this case the Government are acting solely as the trustees and have no personal interest.

Mr. Healey: Could the hon. Gentleman answer the original question, which was whether the Government are considering submitting this dispute to the International Court—not to the previous arbitration procedure?

Mr. Allan: It is not up to the Government to do this. They could not do so without the consent and at the instigation of the two Rulers—the Ruler of Abu Dhabi and the Sultan of Muscat, for whom we act as trustees.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the foreign affairs of these two States?

Mr. Allan: Not at all. These are States for whom we act as trustees.

Mr. Lindsay: Are the Government aware that there will be a general response on this side of the House to the last part of the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates)?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That part of the supplementary question was out of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in preparing a further agreed


Western disarmament plan, he will seek to embody the French proposals on means of delivery.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There are no separate French proposals on the means of delivery of nuclear weapons. Proposals on this matter were already included in the Western plan of March, 1960, which was supported by France. The revised United States plan of 27th June, which has Her Majesty's Government's general support, includes more far-reaching proposals on this subject.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that an agreement for the establishment of an appropriate system of control of bomber bases and rocket sites, pending the achievement of agreement for the total abolition of nuclear weapons, might make a very substantial contribution to the problems which arise from the danger of fear of surprise attack?

Mr. Lloyd: We have been in general sympathy with the French view about trying to give increased priority to this matter. Indeed, increased priority has been given in the revised United States plan. But the French Government themselves have never put this forward as a proposal in isolation from all other disarmament measures. We should regard them as right in that.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: While acknowledging that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has several times given some support to M. Moch's proposals, will he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will try to secure the abolition of all means of delivery as quickly as possible?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, in proper relationship to other measures of disarmament.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (MR. KHRUSHCHEV'S VISIT)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what authority Her Majesty's Embassy staff in Vienna took part in the boycott of Mr. Khrushchev's arrival in Austria; and what was the reason for associating them with this action.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In accordance with his instructions, Her Majesty's Ambas

sador in Vienna conformed with Austrian official practice. This does not normally, and did not on this occasion, provide for the attendance of heads of mission at the airport on the arrival of an official guest of the Austrian Government.

Mr. Zilliacus: I am grateful for that reply. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that the Press reports of a deliberate boycott, as an act of discourtesy initiated by the Americans, were not accurate and that no such move was intended?

Mr. Lloyd: There was no such boycott. I think there was no more resentment than I felt at the fact that the Soviet Ambassador did not meet me.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONGO (SITUATION)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what requests he has received from the Katanga Province of the Congo Republic; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On 10th July, Mr. Tshombe, Prime Minister of the Provincial Government of Katanga, asked for military assistance, and on 11th July he asked for police assistance. In answering a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 11th July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained to the House what replies had been made to these two requests from Mr. Tshombe.
Subsequently, Mr. Tshombe addressed a message to me containing a general appeal to the countries of the free world to recognise the independence of Katanga. The hon. Member has already been told that no answer has been returned to this message.

Mr. Stonehouse: As Katanga is not an independent State, is not it the position that any reply to its request would be conveyed through Mr. Lumumba? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, during his friendly discussions with Mr. Lumumba on Saturday, the Minister of State discussed this question? Does the Foreign Secretary fully support the United Nations in the request that Belgian troops should be withdrawn from Katanga?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member will recall the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about dealing with the Central Government of the Congo. With regard to his question about the conversations between the Minister of State and Mr. Lumumba, I have had no report that this matter was raised at all. I would rather deal with his last point during the later Questions abort this aspect.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the situation following the arrival of the United Nations' Forces in the Congo Republic.

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Security Council's decision concerning the situation in the Congo.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the Congo and the position of the United Nations forces there.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether effect has now been given to the decision of the Security Council that all Belgian troops should be withdrawn from the Congo Republic.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The latest reports from the Congo show that United Nations forces are now deployed there in considerable numbers and are still arriving. This U.N. operation seems to be proceeding smoothly and satisfactorily and has already had a calming effect. The withdrawal of Belgian troops from places where the U.N. troops have been able to provide security is going on; it has already been completed in Leopoldville itself.
Monsieur Lumumba has now gone to the United States where he has seen Mr. Hammarskjoeld, who will, in turn, be visiting Leopoldville within the next few days. I hope these consultations will further carry forward the United Nations task of restoring the situation in the Congo.
In the meantime, as the House knows, the Security Council has met again, on 21st July, to discuss the Congo. It adopted unanimously a resolution which

I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This had the effect of endorsing what has so far been done by the U.N., and I am sure that the House would agree that we should continue to support and encourage their effort.

Mr. Henderson: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether it is the policy of the Security Council that all Belgian troops shall leave the Congo Republic? If so, can he say whether, in arriving at this decision, the Security Council considered the validity of the alleged agreement made between that Republic and the Belgian Government?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that there are three issues involved here, and I really would hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would exercise some restraint. The first task is to try to get law and order secured. There are vast territories of the Congo where there is no law and order at the present time, so that it is very important that the first task of the United Nations should be to get that law and order restored. It is going on very fast. More troops are coming in quickly, and they are able to take over in difficult places. We hope that in this vast territory—the size of Western Europe—we shall get some system of law and order.
There are two other matters. One is the internal constitutional position—that is, the position of the Katanga. We take the view that the Congo should remain a unified State, because of the wealth of the Katanga and the importance it has to the rest of the Congo. But this is an internal matter, and it would be a very grave mistake if we allowed United Nations troops to be used to solve internal problems.
Then there is the other matter—the question of Belgian troops. What is in process is that the troops are being withdrawn to their bases, as is happening in Leopoldville, but the future of those troops is a matter for the Congo and Belgian Governments. There are the defence agreements, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, and I think that it is much better for us to concentrate our attention at present on the first task of securing law and order, let these other problems evolve, and meantime give full support to the United Nations in its rôle.

Mr. Healey: We all have great sympathy with the Foreign Secretary's general attitude on this matter, and I think he will agree that the Opposition has shown restraint in not pressing the matter too hard in the last week. But would he not agree that the fact that the Belgian troops still seem to be remaining in the Congo in areas where the United Nations have already established law and order is in itself likely to endanger the chances of establishing law and order in the rest of the area? While I think all of us on this side of the House appreciate the desire of the Belgian Government to protect its own nationals, I do not think we could support Belgian troops remaining in the Congo when the United Nations troops have taken over, and we would even more strongly oppose the use of Belgian troops in influencing the constitutional future of the Congo. This latter danger, particularly in Katanga, is a matter of even greater importance than the use of United Nations troops.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the Belgian troops are withdrawing where the United Nations troops are able to take over, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a territory the size of Western Europe. Katanga itself is the size of Spain. There are only 6,000 United Nations troops there at the moment. This is a tremendous task; there is literally chaos. Therefore, it is right that the Belgian troops should withdraw where the United Nations have established law and order. I do not think the Belgian troops should withdraw on the offchance that the United Nations will be able to do it all over the country. I think they must wait for the gradual restoration.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that Katanga is part of the Congo and will remain part of the Congo,—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—do I misunderstand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's promise that there is no attempt to dissociate Katanga from the Congo Republic? If it is a part of the Congo Republic, does he not agree that as the Belgian troops are a source of discontent, they ought to be removed as quickly as possible from Katanga and to be replaced by United Nations forces?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think it is for Her Majesty's Government to try to settle

this matter. I have said before that we hope for the unity of the Congo, but there is such a thing as self-determination and there are many different tribes, and although one hopes to keep a unitary State, whether it is a federal State or a Confederation, it is not a matter for us to deal with. I hope the United Nations Secretary General will act in a mediatory rôle and will succeed in solving the constitutional problem, but it is not for me to express an opinion.

Mr. Fell: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen a report in the Press of a statement made to a correspondent by General Van Horn, in which he said:
You can take it as definite that we shall be taking over the whole of the southern provinces including Katanga. I have my instructions and they will be carried out"?
In view of this, will my right hon. and learned Friend make the strongest representations through his representative to the United Nations that the United Nations troops shall not be used to cross the border into the State of Katanga unless there is a need to quell trouble in that State?

Mr. Lloyd: I have been in touch with the Secretary-General of the United Nations about this matter and he said—indeed, he has stated publicly—that he does not think United Nations troops should be used to settle internal constitutional problems. I have no reason to believe that anything to the contrary has been said by anybody else. In the meantime, I think the Secretary-General is going to the Congo himself and I have great confidence in his judgment of the situation. What we have to do is to try to mediate in this matter so that there is a satisfactory assurance by both sides, and we should try to ensure a unitary State. The consequences of Katanga contracting out of the Congo would be very serious indeed.

Following is the Resolution:

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION TABLED ON JULY 21, 1960, BY CEYLON AND TUNISIA

The Security Council
Having considered the first report by the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council Resolution S/4387 of 14 July, 1960.
Appreciating the work of the Secretary-General and the support so readily and so speedily given to him by all Member States invited by him to give assistance.


Noting that as stated by the Secretary General the arrival of the troops of the United Nations Force in Leopoldville has already had a salutary effect.
Recognising that an urgent need still exists to continue and to increase such efforts.
Considering that the complete restoration of law and order in the Republic of the Congo would effectively contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.
Recognising that the Security Council recommended the admission of the Republic of the Congo to membership in the United Nations as a unit.
Calls upon the Government of Belgium to implement speedily the Resolution of the Council of July 14 on the withdrawal of their troops and authorises the Secretary-General to take all necessary action to this effect.
Requests all States to refrain from any action which might tend to impede the restoration of law and order and the exercise by the Government of the Congo of its authority, and also to refrain from any action which might undermine the territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of the Congo.
Commends the Secretary-General for the prompt action he has taken to carry out Resolution S/4387 of the Security Council and his first report.
Invites the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations to render to the Secretary-General all assistance that he may require.
Requests the Secretary-General to report further to the Security Council as appropriate.

Dr. Stross: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the delegate of the United Kingdom at the United Nations to suggest that the United Nations should request all members who are able to do so to provide assistance in the Congo by way of transport, communications and food.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This is unnecessary The Secretary-General is already doing this, with our full support.

Dr. Stross: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we have noted that there has been some misunderstanding between the Soviet Union and the United States as to the rôle each might play in rendering assistance, and will he, therefore, accept the purport of this question, which is to urge that it would be desirable that we should make representations that everyone should help with the minimum amount of personnel and the maximum amount of food and general assistance?

Mr. Lloyd: This is the very definite policy of the Secretary-General, who has asked that all members able to do so should provide assistance in the Congo

by way of transport, communications and food. As regards military personnel, it has been decided, quite rightly, I think, not to ask the permanent members of the Security Council to supply contingents.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ease the conditions attached to applications for a United Kingdom passport, in view of the growing popularity of holidays abroad and the difficulties resulting from the fact that an application must be authenticated and sponsored either by a Member of Parliament, justice of the peace, minister of religion, medical or legal practitioner, established civil servant, bank officer, public official, police officer or any person of similar standing who has been personally acquainted with the applicant for at least two years; and if he will give a list of those of similar standing whose signatures are acceptable to his Department.

Mr. R. Allan: Because of the need to establish the identity of an applicant for a passport, I am afraid there is no alternative to the present system of having the application countersigned by a responsible person. Persons of similar standing to those quoted on the form include any member of a professional body whose name can be checked in a published list, senior trade union officials, and personnel managers of large firms. Where a person is unable to obtain the countersignature of a qualified person, the Passport Office will always advise him as to the best course of action.

Mr. Dodds: I thank the hon. Member for these additional classifications, which may be helpful. Is he aware that the other day I had the case of two people who had moved to the south of England from the north of Scotland. They have been twenty months in their new district, but it says on the form that it could be serious far a recommender if he were to sign it for such persons. It might not be possible for a person who moves to get the sort of signature demanded. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if a criminal wants to obtain a passport he will be able to do so? I am dealing with humble people who want a holiday and who are finding difficulties because of the conditions laid down in the form.

Mr. Allan: That is not true—

Mr. Dodds: What is not true?

Mr. Allan: That a criminal can get a passport easily.

Mr. Dodds: He can—easily.

Mr. Allan: These controls make it more difficult for him. Last year, 746,000 passports were issued. Only four or five people reported difficulty in obtaining signatures of a qualified person.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to avoid recriminations, threats or incidents as a result of differences between permanent members of the Security Council over such matters as the alleged violation of each other's air space, or policies in regard to the Congo or Cuba, he will instruct Her Majesty's representative on the Security Council to propose the working out and adoption of a code of co-existence between the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the French Republic, which would implement in their mutual relations the principles, purposes and obligations of the United Nations Charter, in particular, the provisions relating to respect for international law and treaty obligations and to the settlement of disputes by peaceful means.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am all for a code of conduct, particularly one designed to establish that both sides mean the same thing by peaceful co-existence and one observed in fact as well as word. As the House knows, I had hoped that progress would be made at the Summit meeting, and I deeply regretted Mr. Khrushchev's refusal to discuss this sort of matter. I do not think that the Security Council is at present the place to pursue this idea.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not this proposal little different from the one referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? This is a suggestion that the permanent members of the Security Council, as such, having special responsibilities under the Charter, should work out a code of conduct which would include

procedure for the regulation of their mutual relations. Would not an initiative on these lines help to prevent the kind of provocative incidents and violent language that have been flying around from both sides in the last few weeks?

Mr. Lloyd: I regret that we were not able to take up this matter at the Paris meeting. I do not think that the present time is opportune for the idea concerning the Security Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-SPANISH CULTURAL CONVENTION

Mr. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the terms of the Anglo-Spanish Cultural Convention.

Mr. R. Allan: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (BRITISH CLAIMS)

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he hopes to conclude the negotiations with the Japanese Government for the settlement of claims for compensation of British subjects arising out of the China incident.

Mr. R. Allan: I am glad to be able to say that we have recently received a fresh proposal from the Japanese Government. We are examining this, and I hope that a settlement may be reached soon.

Mr. Carr: Is my hon. Friend aware that the claimants in this case include not only commercial firms, who might be able to exist without undue hardship, but also many private individuals in straitened circumstances and of advancing age? Will he make quite sure that the new Japanese Government are aware of the very strong feeling there is that we should have a quick and satisfactory settlement?

Mr. Allan: I quite agree with my hon. Friend, and we much deplore the length of time it has taken to reach a settlement. We have, however, been assured that the new Japanese Government will honour the undertaking given by Mr. Kishi, which was contained in the joint communiqué issued after his visit here.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL ACT, 1869

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will introduce legislation to remove the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869, from the Schedule of Acts to which the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, 1890 to 1913, can be applied.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the three Bahreinis are legally detained in St. Helena is based purely on the ipse dixit of the Foreign Secretary that he has jurisdiction over Bahreini citizens for this purpose, and will not he remove this blot from the British Statute Book and thereby make it impossible for a British Government to repeat this perversion of justice by which these men are detained in St. Helena?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept anything of what the hon. Member says. I am told also, although this matter chiefly concerns my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the extension of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869, under the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts is desirable for the proper care and custody of prisoners in a number of territories.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (CHINA)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet come to a decision whether he will table for inclusion in the agenda of the General Assembly of the United Nations a motion calling for the admission of the Chinese People's Republic to the Organisation, including permanent membership of the Security Council.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the current quieter situation in the Far East, he will now propose the admission of the Peking Government to the United Nations.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have already stated on a number of occasions Her Majesty's Government's position on this matter. I have nothing to add.

Mr. Warbey: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself has agreed that there is very little hope of getting a comprehensive agreement on disarmament until China is a party to the disarmament talks, and as there is no hope of China coming into those talks until she is a member of the United Nations, will not the British Government have the courage of their own convictions and give a lead to the recognition of China during the forthcoming General Assembly?

Mr. Lloyd: One has to have regard to the facts of the international situation, and also to the views of a large number of other friendly Governments, and I must say that my view continues to be that it would not be appropriate to put down such a motion at the present time.

Mr. Donnelly: I have two questions to ask of the Foreign Secretary. First, is he aware that I hope that he enjoys the same success in his new post that he has enjoyed in his present one? Secondly, may I ask him what conditions he envisages would make it possible for Her Majesty's Government actually to propose the admission of China to the United Nations?

Mr. Lloyd: We have debated this question again and again. What I have always said is that, if one is to start a course of conduct which may split the United Nations, it will defeat the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind for enlarging the United Nations.

Mr. Healey: But does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that in the last two foreign affairs debates there was unanimous support for the admission of Communist China to the United Nations from his own side of the House as well as from this? Has not the time come to end this silly farce of treating the Chiang Kai-shek Government as representative of the Chinese people? Will not he take into account the views of a very large number of friendly Governments which take the same view on the matter as do Her Majesty's Opposition?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong when he says that we recognise the Chiang Kai-shek Government. We do not, and we have not done so for


some years. But the point is, do we, in fact, improve the international organisation and make it more comprehensive by advocating a course of conduct or procedure which will, in fact, split the United Nations, and which might very easily involve its falling apart altogether? That is the consideration.

Mr. Longden: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, whatever the British Government may do to try to end what has been described as a "silly farce", it remains within the competence of the American Government to veto the suggestion that the People's Republic of China should be introduced into the United Nations and into the Security Council, and that whatever we do, we cannot prevent that?

Mr. Lloyd: This is not, of course, a question of the admission of Communist China but a question of which Government is recognised as the lawful representative of China. I would not like to pronounce, without notice, on the question whether the veto would apply in the Security Council on a matter like that.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Foreign Secretary say what contribution is made to world peace by the refusal to recognise the Chinese People's Republic, which is a fait accompli? Is it not the case that the policy of the Government is in support of the Chinese Republic being a member of the United Nations and of the Security Council? Is not that their policy? Are we being subservient to the United States in the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: We have recognised the Government of the People's Republic, and all we have said is that we think that the time is not yet ripe to consider the question of the Chinese seat in the United Nations.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does it not follow from what the Foreign Secretary has said that the Chinese People's Republic is, in fact, a member of the United Nations, that we are denying the rights of representation in the Security Council and the General Assembly which belong to that Republic under the Charter, and that we ourselves are in breach of the Charter? Has he not heard it very frequently said in New York that, if the British Government would state what

they know to be the true position on principle, the American resistance would disappear?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that, certainly not at a time like this, when the right hon. Gentleman knows the circumstances concerned. The point is that we have recognised this Government, and we think that time must bring a solution to the problem, but we think that to precipitate the issue now, and insist on raising it now, would mean running the very grave danger of the withdrawal from the United Nations of a large number of States. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want that, I think that they are making a very great mistake.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. HELENA (DETAINED PERSONS)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet decided when he will release Mr. Rahman al Baker, and two other Bahreinis sentenced with him, from detention on St. Helena.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have at present nothing to add to my reply of 29th June.

Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary will recall that, in his reply on that occasion, he suggested that he was considering remitting the rest or part of the remainder of the sentence. Can he say when he is going to take a decision on the matter? It has been in front of him for several years. Is he aware that it is the unanimous view of many people—I think most of the Opposition—that the continual imprisonment of these subjects of a foreign State in Her Majesty's prisons is absolutely intolerable?

Mr. Lloyd: I have never said that I would consider remitting the sentence. I do not think I have any power to do so. I said that I would enter into discussion with those concerned to see what can be done. I have done that, and I still hope for favourable results.

Mr. Wall: Do we have to take action? Surely the only action that we can take is to hand these men back to their lawful ruler?

Mr. Lloyd: That may well be so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMALILAND (INDEPENDENCE)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the independent State of Somaliland has now exchanged diplomatic representatives with this country; and how many Somalis in this country have now been classified as aliens.

Mr. R. Allan: The union between Somaliland and Somalia to form the Somali Republic was acclaimed on 1st July and Mr. T. E. Bromley presented his credentials as first British Ambassador to the Republic on that date. The Somali Republic have not yet appointed a diplomatic representative in London.
As regards the second part of the Question, it is impossible to give a precise figure. But we believe that the number of Somalis in the country who, by virtue of the Somaliland Protectorate's attainment of independence, became aliens on 26th June, 1960, is about 1,500.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea when the diplomatic representative from the Somali Republic will be appointed to London? Secondly, can the hon. Gentleman say whether any steps are being taken to acquaint Somalis in this country, of whom there are a large number—I think more than 1,500—of their position in the matter so that they may take action to secure either British or Somali citizenship?

Mr. Allan: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he attended the independence celebrations, discussed this matter and indicated that we would be very glad to receive a representative as soon as he could be found. I cannot give any date for that.
As for the second part of the supplementary question, it would be better to wait until the representative is appointed so that we can go into the details of informing Somalis in this country.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the present position of the Somaliland Scouts.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: With the attainment of independence by Somaliland on 26th June, control over the Somaliland Scout; passed to the Government of

Somaliland. At this time, I should like to say how much their high traditions of loyal and disciplined service have been valued by successive Governments in this country.

Mr. Wall: I am glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend's tribute, but has his attention been called to the report that the Somaliland Scouts have not been handed over to the new Government of the Republic because it was said that the ex-British Somalis did not have their fair share of Ministerial posts in the now Government? Could he comment on that?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a little uncertainty at the moment as to the extent to which the Act of Union has been consummated, but I gather that someone from Somaliland is the Minister of Defence in the projected Government, so perhaps he will be able to look after the Somaliland Scouts.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIMITATION OF ARMS

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made by his Department in the study of proposals for zones of limited arms in Europe and elsewhere.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not know to which particular study the hon. Member is referring. On the question of zones of arms limitation, I have nothing to add to my statements in the Foreign Affairs debates on 11th February and 12th May.

Mr. Swingler: At the eleventh hour of his term of office, will not the Foreign Secretary now repent and remember the communiqué signed by the Prime Minister and Mr. Khrushchev in Moscow in January, 1959, which put forward the proposal for a study of limited arms zones as a separate means of trying to relax tension, getting East-West agreement and helping forward negotiations for disarmament? Are we to take it from his reply that this has now been completely abandoned, or was it regarded as a propaganda stunt?

Mr. Lloyd: No, the reference in the communiqué was to a joint study with the Russians, and not a study by my Department. That is another reason why I regret the fact that they have terminated the Ten-Power Conference. I had hoped, as I said earlier, that under the


heading of anti-surprise measures we should have come down to a discussion, at all events, on zones of inspection.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the total contributions of Great Britain have been, to date, to the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation.

Mr. R. Allan: The total amount contributed by the United Kingdom to the budgets of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation from 1st April, 1956, to 30th June, 1960, was £138,558.

Mr. Davies: Does that amount include, for instance, 5·5 million dollars scheduled by S.E.A.T.O. reports up to 1st October, 1958 for economic aid? Secondly, that amount obviously does not include the cost of contributions to the military exercises, six of which have taken place since 1954. Can we, therefore, have an accurate statement of our contributions, military and economic, say, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in the near future?

Mr. Allan: The figure that I gave includes all the contributions made to the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. What the hon. Gentleman is referring to is a much wider question of what aid we give under the Colombo Plan—

Mr. Davies: Military.

Mr. Allan: No, not military—what economic aid we give under the Colombo Plan. Something like £190 million has gone from this country since the war through the Colombo Plan, and some £9 million in technical aid.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARCTIC ZONE

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose at the United Nations that the Arctic zone should be made a neutral area and that all flights to investigate electro-magnetic phenomena in that area should be carried out only under United Nations auspices.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Member will remember that in the Security Council in May, 1958, the United States Government offered to join in making the Arctic an inspection area, but the Soviet Union refused.

Mr. Hughes: In view of recent developments, should not Her Majesty's Government proceed with the idea of the Arctic being made a neutral zone? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that he has been associated with making the Antarctic a neutral zone? Why not the Arctic? Even if the Soviet Government have refused, why not put it to them again?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman is able to promise me some change in the Soviet attitude, I should certainly consider putting it up again.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT FRONDIZI (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about his discussions with President Frondizi.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I was present with the Argentine Foreign Minister at one discussion between the President and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The President and my right hon. Friend also had one meeting alone. The communiqué which was issued from No. 10 Downing Street on 7th July and published in the national Press accurately summarised the nature of these discussions. I will circulate the text in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I would, however, draw the attention of the House to the statement that
The Prime Minister and President Frondizi…agreed that the United Kingdom and Argentina had a common interest in the preservation of peace, democracy and justice and in the promotion of economic progress".
The communiqué also noted that
The President and the Prime Minister observed with satisfaction the excellent relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom and agreed that these could be intensified by ever closer contacts of all kinds".
These two sentences accurately reflect the atmosphere of great friendliness in which these discussions were held and the state of relations between this country and Argentina.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the fact also that at that discussion—according to what I am led to believe—the President of Argentina made it clear that, since Cuba had committed no external aggression, he failed to see why there


should be any cause for outside interference? Was that view accepted at the meeting to which the Foreign Secretary has referred?

Mr. Lloyd: There was not a scintilla of difference in approach between the Argentine Government and our own to the problem of Cuba.

Following is the Communiqué

Oral Answers to Questions — VISIT OF PRESIDENT FRONDIZI

During his visit to the United Kingdom from 4th July to 7th July, President Frondizi had conversations with the Prime Minister on two occasions. On 5th July, he was accompanied by Dr. Taboada, the Foreign Minister of the Argentine, and the Foreign Secretary was also present. On 6th July. President Frondizi and the Prime Minister had a meeting alone.

During their conversations, the Prime Minister and President Frondizi discussed many aspects of the international situation and agreed that the United Kingdom and Argentina had a common interest in the preservation of peace, democracy and justice, and in the promotion of economic progress.

It was recognised that Argentina had already made great progress towards the recovery of her economic prosperity. The Argentine President emphasised that, in order to complete her development programmes, Argentina needed medium and long-term credits and investments front overseas to supplement her own efforts to promote her economic expansion. The Prime Minister referred to the assistance already extended by Her Majesty's Government and by private financial groups to Argentina. and explained to the President that, in considering the extent of further assistance of this kind, account had to be taken of the United Kingdom's commitments in the Commonwealth.

The President and the Prime Minister agreed on the desirability of improving economic cooperation between the industrialised nations of the Western World and Latin America. The Prime Minister assured the President that the policies of E.F.T.A. would not hamper the development of economic co-operation between Latin America and Western Europe. The President said that the Latin American Free Trade Zone would serve to promote closer economic relations between the two areas.

The question was discussed how Anglo Argentine trade could be further expanded and British enterprise encouraged to play a greater part in the development of Argentina's industries and natural resources.

The President and the Prime Minister observed with satisfaction the excellent relations between Argentine and the U.K. and agreed that these could be further intensified by ever closer contacts of all kinds.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (CULTURAL RELATIONS)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that an exhibition of British

paintings has recently been held ha Peking; and what steps he is taking to encourage cultural relations with China.

Mr. R. Allan: Yes, Sir. We are studying, in consultation with the British Council, the possibilities of encouraging cultural relations with China.

Mr. Mayhew: I thank the Minister for that reply, but has his attention been drawn to the remarkable success of the exhibition of British paintings in Moscow and Leningrad recently held under the best possible auspices? Is there not a sad contrast between our cultural relations with the Soviet Union and those with China, and, in spite of the difficulties, will he press ahead in an effort to achieve results?

Mr. Allan: Yes, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Aberdeenshire

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give to the latest convenient date the numbers of unemployed persons by sexes and trades, respectively, in the city and county of Aberdeen.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the Government are still in breach of many promises they made about unemployment in Aberdeen and the North of Scotland? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade to see if he and they can, jointly and severally, take some serious steps to fulfil the promises with regard to unemployment, trade and industry in Aberdeen which were made at several General Elections and which have been consistently broken by the Government ever since?

Mr. Heath: The hon. and learned Gentleman has a Question down for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade tomorrow about progress made in this respect, and I am sure he will receive a satisfactory Answer.

Following is the Table:


NUMBER OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICES IN ABERDEEN AND IN THE REST OF ABERDEENSHIRE AT 11TH JULY, 1960



Aberdeen
Aberdeen County (excluding Aberdeen)


Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total


Agriculture and Horticulture
…
…
92
5
97
151
16
167


Fishing.
…
…
181
—
181
80
—
80


Bacon curing, fish and meat products
…
…
46
27
73
27
39
66


Shipbuilding and ship repairing
…
…
365
1
366
9
1
10


Spinning and doubling of cotton, flax and man-made fibres
…
…
32
11
43
—
—
—


Brick, pottery, glass, cement, etc.
…
…
46
3
49
5
—
5


Timber
…
…
61
—
61
13
—
13


Construction
…
…
285
1
286
71
5
76


Sea transport
…
…
75
2
77
13
1
14


Distributive trades
…
…
239
138
377
50
54
104


Entertainment and sport
…
…
39
8
47
3
—
3


Catering, hotels, etc.
…
…
67
35
102
5
17
22


Private domestic service
…
…
9
47
56
5
39
44


Local government service
…
…
76
6
82
5
1
6


Other industries and services
…
…
687
203
890
161
102
263


Total, all industries and services
…
…
2,300
487
2,787
598
275
873

School Leavers, Dundee

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Labour how many school-leavers are seeking employment in the city of Dundee following the end of the school year; what are the prospects of placing them in employment; and whether he is satisfied with the number of apprenticeships available.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): Out of 972 boys and girls who left school in the Dundee Employment Exchange Area, 89 were registered as unemployed on 11th July but some had still to register. Prospects of employment for boys and girls and of apprenticeships for suitable boys are good.

Mr. Thomson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware of the importance in development areas of providing a large number of opportunities for skilled jobs, and will he consider making it a condition of contracts by public authorities that an adequate number of apprenticeships for young people are given?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is a matter for me.

Earnings (Inquiry)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he will explain the purpose

of the new survey of earnings; if he will have published with the survey the wages for each industry and for each grade, including also statistics showing the changes in wages during the years 1914, 1920, 1930 and 1960; and if he will explain in the publication the direct relationship that exists between enhanced earnings in engineering on the one hand and prices fixed by mutual agreement and increased effort on the other.

Mr. Heath: The purpose of the inquiry next October is to show, for the first time since 1938, both the average weekly earnings of manual workers and the distribution of individual earnings above and below these averages. Individual industries will be distinguished but not separate occupations or grades. It will not be practicable to relate actual earnings in engineering to rates fixed by mutual agreement.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That reply is very informative and satisfactory as far as it goes and impossible to pursue in question and answer. Will the Minister bear in mind the points raised in the Question?

Wages, Earnings and Social Insurance

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he will collate statistics showing the comparative wages, earnings and social insurance payments in various countries, and issue them as an


official publication, as is done by the Department of Statistics of the French Government.

Mr. Heath: Information about wages, earnings and social security charges in other countries is regularly published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. Comparative wages and earnings are also shown in the I.L.O. Yearbook of Labour Statistics and in the monthly International Labour Review. These publications are available in the Library, and I see no need for a special publication.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept that reply, but there are more interested in statistics of this kind than Members of the House of Commons. There is industry generally, for instance. Should not the Ministry issue a publication of the same kind as that issued in France and other countries in order that we may be able to compare like with like when negotiations are taking place?

Mr. Heath: I have looked at the sort of thing which is published in France. To collate all the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks would be a tremendous undertaking. I think he will find that those who are particularly interested in statistics of this kind have these publications available to them.

Mr. Prentice: But is not the informamation in the Ministry of Labour Gazette just piecemeal information about one industry in one country at a time? Why cannot the Government publish comparative information of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend? Is it that they would find it rather embarrassing now to make comparisons between progress made here and progress in countries with a faster rate of economic growth where real earnings and social insurance benefits are increasing faster than they are in Britain under a Conservative Government?

Mr. Heath: That is certainly not the reason. I think everyone will agree that the statistics are published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette quite impartially and that journal has a very high reputation for its integrity.

Industrial Health Service (Nuffield Foundation Grant)

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement about the development of industrial health services.

Mr. Heath: I have been considering with my Industrial Health Advisory Committee how best to develop industrial health services.
Legal requirements safeguarding the health of industrial workers are contained in the Factories Acts and regulations. These are constantly revised and extended.
In addition, many firms voluntarily provide medical and nursing services. To encourage more employers to do this, I am publishing later this year a booklet about some of these services, giving details of their cost together with the views of management and workpeople about them.
As well as such services provided by individual firms, group schemes have operated successfully in a few places with special circumstances, such as Slough and Harlow. We now need to explore the possibilities of establishing group schemes in areas of a different kind.
Another need is for the fuller use and development of industrial hygiene services to carry out chemical, physical and biological tests where special hazards exist or are suspected. I hope that awareness of this need will be stimulated by the booklet I have published recently on Toxic Substances in Factory Atmospheres. I am arranging to set up an organisation to collect information about existing facilities regularly and to make it available to employers.
I have discussed further action with the Nuffield Foundation which has had considerable experience in promoting industrial health schemes. I am happy to say that the Trustees of the Foundation have decided to allocate the sum of £250,000 for the further development of group industrial health services and industrial hygiene services. The money will be applied to assist practical schemes which promise to be self-supporting after an initial period of development. In the selection of such schemes, the Foundation will work in the closest co-operation with my Department.
I am most grateful—as I am sure we all are—for this further example of the interest and generosity of the Nuffield Foundation in this field.

Mr. Carr: This new impetus is most welcome. May I ask my right hon. Friend what sort of schemes he has in


mind for using this Nuffield grant and what sort of organisation he is thinking of setting up for collecting information about industrial hygiene?

Mr. Heath: The organisation which we shall set up to collect and collate information about the facilities for Chemicals, physical and biological testing will be within my Department itself, but it will have the help and advice of the sub-committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee.
Concerning the sort of things we have in mind for the use of the £250,000, so far the group schemes have operated in the newer areas and in areas where factories are grouped together—for example, in Slough and Harlow. There have been other experiments, but they have been the main ones. We hope to apply same of this to the older areas, and where factories are more scattered and there are various difficulties still to be overcome.

Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman has referred several times to group schemes. How many of them are there covering smaller firms? Am I right in thinking that they cover only a very small proportion of industry? Is there any hope that they will spread over the greater part of British industry, particularly small firms, unless the Government take a hand in organising an occupational health service throughout the country which is badly needed, would pay for itself many times over, particularly in the hours of work likely to be saved, and would be a great humanitarian service?

Mr. Heath: It is true that a very large number of the larger and middle-sized firms run their own schemes. The number of group schemes at present in operation is small, but it can be shown that they work effectively in the areas I have described. Now we want to go ahead over a wider field to show that they can operate effectively and thus can spread in the same way as individual firms' schemes have spread.

Mr. Marsh: Quite apart from the social aspect of this problem, are there not good economic reasons why the Government should take over responsibility of providing a Government-sponsored health service rather than relying upon exhortation to private industry?

Mr. Heath: I know that one school of thought would like to have a completely nationalised industrial health service running parallel to the existing National Health Service. I take the view that this is a better way of approaching this problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Dr. Summerskill: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? There are a number of Questions to the Minister of Health on the Order Paper? The Minister of Health has resigned and has retired to the third bench below the Gangway. Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, which Minister is authorised to give a Written Answer to these Questions?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to the right hon. Lady's mystery is that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been recorded on the Order Paper in lieu of the Minister had we had time physically to make the requisite alteration.

HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR GHANA (ASSAULT)

Mr. Marquand: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on the assault made on the High Commissioner for Ghana on Saturday.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport):: An incident took place in London on the evening of 23rd July during the visit of Mr. Lumumba, the Prime Minister of the Congo Republic. In the course of this incident His Excellency the Ghana High Commissioner in London, Sir Edward Asafu-Adjaye, was assaulted and knocked down. I am unable to give further details since the matter is sub judice.
On learning that the incident had occurred, by noble Friend immediately sent a personal message of apology to Sir Edward and informed the President of Ghana that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom greatly regretted this most unfortunate happening.
Her Majesty's Government would be profoundly concerned at anything which might affect the present close and most


friendly co-operation between the Governments of Ghana and the United Kingdom and earnestly hope that this incident will not impair the admirable relations between our two Governments and peoples.
The United Kingdom High Commissioner in Accra received a protest about this incident from the Ghana Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 24th July and replied in this sense. I would like to add that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom greatly value Sir Edward Asafu-Adjaye's work in London and the talent and skill which he has brought to his ask. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will join with me in wishing Sir Edward a speedy recovery from any ill-effects which may have been occasioned by the assault.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marquand: May I be allowed to associate all my hon. and right hon. Friends with the right hon. Gentleman's statement? We are glad that the Government have made this statement and given this explanation to Ghana as well as to the world. I should like particularly to be associated with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the High Commissioner and to join in hoping that he will soon recover from any injury which he may have suffered.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we deeply deplore this most regrettable incident, particularly that it should have occurred at a time when we were having a visit to this country by the Prime Minister of the friendly country of the Congo Republic? I am aware that I must be restrained by the fact that the matter is sub judice, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether inquiries are being made into the apparent inadequacy of police arrangements to protect these distinguished gentlemen?

Mr. Alport: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his expressions of regret for this incident which, I am sure and know, is shared by all Members of the House. I am sure that the many friends in this House of the High Commissioner would wish particularly that the House should be associated with these expressions of regret.
I think that the question of the adequacy of the police is a matter which should be directed to my right hon.

Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the Metropolitan Police. But I am informed that a substantial number of police, together with senior officers, were present.

Mrs. White: Will not the right hon. Gentleman confer with the Home Secretary on that last point? Is he aware that it was reported that the High Commissioner's secretary said that he discussed the situation with the police before the High Commissioner came out of the hotel and told them that he felt that the arrangements were not satisfactory?

Mr. Alport: I think that that is a matter of judgment, but I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making careful inquiries into the whole circumstances from the police point of view.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Redmayne.

Mr. Fell: Mr. Fell rose—

Mr. Speaker: I suspect that the hon. Member is rising to ask for leave to move the Adjournment of the House. This is not the moment. I will give him an opportunity to do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): Mr. Speaker, I have a short Business statement to make on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
It is proposed to reassemble after the Summer Recess on Tuesday, 25th October, and the necessary Motion will be moved at the beginning of business tomorrow.
It is expected that Prorogation will take place on Thursday, 27th October, and that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 1st November.
The business to be taken on our return will be announced later this week.
These arrangements will enable the House to be under rather less pressure during the current week.
Tonight, after the European Trade debate, we shall take only the Post Office (Submarine Cable System) Order, followed by Opposition Prayers.
On Wednesday, we shall consider only those Lords Amendments to Bills announced last Thursday:
Caravan Sites and Control of Development.
Mental Health (Scotland).
Road Traffic and Roads Improvement.
Betting and Gaming.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Patronage Secretary say when the changes in the Government are to be announced?

Mr. Redmayne: I do not think that that arises on this business statement.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister our concern on this side of the House, which, I believe, is shared in some quarters on the other side, at the suggestion that the Foreign Secretary should be a Member of the House of Lords and not of the House of Commons?

Mr. Redmayne: I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Wigg: It was I who raised, last week, two of the matters to which the Patronage Secretary has referred. One was the arrangements for business on Wednesday, and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the alteration. The second was why the Government were cagey about the day on which they put down the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess.
Is it not obvious that the House cannot possibly discuss that Motion until the House is told what the Government changes are to be? Clearly, if there is to be an announcement that the Foreign Secretary is to be in another place, this is a matter of such constitutional importance that I, for once, would not wish to depart until it had been adequately debated.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot think that that properly arises on this business statement. I will, however, hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Wigg: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I accept your Ruling. Last Thursday, however, I asked why the House was not told then of the day on which we would have an opportunity to

debate the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess. Now, we are told without any notice that the Motion is being put down in such a way as to preclude any hon. Member on either side of the House from discussing the Government changes. We ought not to go away until we know what the Government changes will be.

Mr. Speaker: Clearly, the hon. Member cannot make on this business statement whatever speech he might make when it was proposed that the House should adjourn. That cannot be right.

Mr. Wigg: I am not seeking to make the speech which I should make on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess, Sir; I am asking that either the Patronage Secretary or the Foreign Secretary will make a statement to the House—it would be quite simple—to agree to take the Motion for the Adjournment either on Wednesday or on Thursday, when the House will be in full possession of the facts.

Mr. Fletcher: Concerning this week's business, will the Patronage Secretary give an assurance that the impending Government changes will be announced in sufficient time to enable the House to consider their constitutional implications?

Mr. Redmayne: Obviously, I have no information about this. In answer, however, to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), there was nothing cagey about this at all. The Motion is never announced in the House beforehand. It is simply put down by the Government on a suitable day. Indeed, the day on which it has been put down is the day that is most often used.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Patronage Secretary aware that many of us on this side consider it quite intolerable that we should be sent away for three months' holiday at this serious time? In fact, Parliament will not be able to exercise any control over the activities of the Government between now and November. We believe that this is just another sign of the contempt in which the Government hold the House of Commons. Will the right hon. Gentleman please reconsider the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that arises on this business statement. It may be appropriate to some other occasion.

Mr. Swingler: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), may I put it in this way to the Patronage Secretary? Will he give an assurance that the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess will be timed to come after the announcement of Government changes, so that Members will have an opportunity to discuss them? It is very important that this should be done. May we have that assurance?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the appointment of the Foreign Secretary from the House of Lords turns out to be a fact, we shall certainly wish to debate this before the Summer Recess? Will the Government take note that we shall expect them to find time to do this and that further, if the announcement were to be delayed until after the Recess had begun, we should take an extremely dim view of the Government?

Mr. Redmayne: Again, I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Lipton: Concerning this week's business, will the Patronage Secretary please say on what day, whether Wednesday or Thursday, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess will be taken?

Mr. Redmayne: The hon. Member has not understood me. The Motion will be tabled tonight and taken tomorrow.

Mr. Marsh: In view of the unaccustomed loquaciousness of the Patronage Secretary, would it be in order to ask whether we still have a Home Secretary?

Mr. Speaker: Not on business.

Mr. Mellish: If the Motion is to be tabled tomorrow—[Hon. Members: "Tonight."] I am sorry, tonight—and, therefore, presumably, debated tomorrow, will that mean that the whole of the business tomorrow, when a debate on disarmament has been arranged, will be altered? If so, can the right hon. Gentleman say in what manner it is proposed that tomorrow's debate will proceed?

Mr. Redmayne: This procedure is perfectly normal. We take the Motion

for the Summer Recess at 3.30 and we then go on with the business as announced. There is nothing at all unusual in this.

CONGO (UNITED NATIONS FORCES)

Mr. Fell: I wish to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the report that United Nations forces are to move into Katanga from the Congo within the next few days.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to avoid asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House. In reply to Questions this afternoon, however, I did not get the assurances from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary for which I had hoped or, indeed, any assurances that the report to which I have referred would be negatived.
I will not take the time of the House for more than a moment or two at this stage, but, first, I want to emphasise that in my opinion this matter comes under the heading of "definite" because it is a report in a national newspaper of this country which has not, so far as I am aware, been denied by General von Horn or by anybody else. I consider that a report of a statement of such magnitude and such seriousness as this statement was would surely have been denied by now had it been incorrectly reported in this national newspaper.
Secondly, on the ground of urgency, things move so fast these days, and the troops, as was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, are moving in daily to the Congo, that the troops may move at any time across the border. Therefore, the matter may well come under the heading of "urgent".
I know that it would be possible, perhaps, to raise this matter tomorrow, but it may well be that even tomorrow could be too late if one is to have some influence on the matter. In regard to public importance, all I need say is that British lives and interests are at stake, as also is the tremendous British interest in the whole of Africa, which cannot but help be influenced by the turn of events in this part of the world. Therefore I


would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the Adjournment of the House to discuss this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, a report that United Nations forces are to move into Katanga from the Congo within the next few days.
I am greatly obliged to the hon. Member for giving me some notice of his intention to make this application, so that I could have a chance to consider it. I regret that I do not feel able to accede to his request. I could offer other reasons why, but it is sufficient, perhaps, to say that one cannot move the Adjournment of the House on a mere report in a newspaper. From anything I have heard today I could not feel in a frame of mind to think that any of the facts that have been put to me are not at least in dispute, and I cannot regard this as a definite matter. Therefore, for that reason, I cannot accede to the request.

Mr. P. Williams: In your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, you did say that this is merely a report Which may or may not be the fact. Would not the situation of the House be eased a trifle if my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary could announce today whether this is a fact or not? If it is not the fact, then the sooner it is cleared up the bettor. If it is the fact then it is surely now a matter of urgent public business to which the House Should address itself. I understand from your Ruling that you accept that this is urgent, that it is immediate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No]—and that it is of public importance. Surely then—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what the hon. Member is making a speech about. I did not indicate any view about this matter. I said that I could think of several reasons why it would be necessary to decline this application. I stated one, which, in my view, was sufficient. I am very sorry. I must ask the House to take it, because that is my Ruling.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is, of course, a well-estab-

lished precedent that neither a Question nor the Adjournment can be founded on a report, but that does put Members in a slightly difficult position, because, of course, the information with regard to this sort of thing does come through newspaper reports, and it means that an hon. Member has to accept the responsibility for asserting that which is reported. I wonder whether at some time it might be desirable to reconsider the rule about reports and not to have the artificial position in which the hon. Member could have put himself in order by asserting that the report in the newspaper—

Mr. Speaker: I do not accept that the hon. Member could have put himself in order by such methods. I do not think it worth arguing about very much, because the Motion is bad for other reasons, too.
As to the difficulty which the hon. and learned Member puts to me, it is one which the House should consider a long time before altering any rule or precedent of the House that it is not in order to debate matters till they are sufficiently definite and the facts are no longer in dispute. That would be serious.

Mr. C. Pannell: Are you fully seized, Mr. Speaker, on the point of urgency, that we are unlikely to get a reply upon this point from the Foreign Secretary if he is in another place?

Mr. Speaker: I have not said a word about urgency one way or another, nor a word about matters irrelevant to my Ruling.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Without attempting to comment on the merits of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) was quite in order in making his submission to you. I have only very limited experience of the House, but I cannot recall an occasion on which Mr. Speaker brushed a statement of that kind on one side without giving the hon. Member an opportunity to put his case. Surely it would not be safeguarding the rights of the House if an hon. Member, however unpopular his views, could not make a submission to the House or if a Ruling were given without the submission having been heard?

Mr. Speaker: I think that I was probably guilty, unwittingly, of some discourtesy to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). I regret it. What the hon. Member was doing was assuming that my Ruling meant things that it did not mean, and I was anxious to interrupt that process. The Chair likes to make sure that it has in mind every relevant consideration. On this Decision I had hoped that the House would give up the practice of arguing with the Chair after it has given a Ruling, because I think that that takes up time. I do not say that out of any vaunting conceit, Put just because I think that it is for the benefit of the House, roughly, that that course should be taken.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire to make a few observations on Second Reading of this Bill, which deals with the issue of £3,118 million. I desire, in particular, to make an observation about the Vote of £264 million for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I have a personal grievance about this week's business, but I do not intend to say a word about it now because of the seriousness of another issue which I want to raise, although I think that I would be carrying out my duty as a Member of Parliament and in accordance with the procedure if I did. I will subordinate my individual opinions, however, in order to raise an issue upon which I think that I shall carry every Member of the House with me.
Although we are organised in political parties, Conservative on that side and Labour on this—and one Liberal, now—I find that the nearer we get together as individual Members the more sympathetic we are with one another. I have found that hon. and right hon. Members who, politically, are fundamentally opposed to me are very sympathetic when dealing with domestic questions involving loss of life. Taking advantage of my Parliamentary rights, I therefore raise this matter.
In June, we in the City of Stoke-on-Trent lost by drowning five children under 12 years of age. In an industrial area of that kind there are people living in poor and humble homes, with no gardens and no playing fields. In that environment children feel caged up, and so, in the spring, when the better weather comes, the children venture farther afield.
It was during that time that two children were drowned. They came from the poorest possible homes, but their parents and relatives were as good as any other people in the country. When the children were drowned some of my friends asked me to visit the parents. It


is because of that experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and I were determined to raise this issue on the first possible occasion. It is because of the unsatisfactory arrangements which have been made this week for dealing with matters of this kind that we have taken advantage of the fact that we are in order in raising the issue on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
We represent a city which, relatively, turns out more wealth per head of the population than almost any other city in the country. We represent a city where, for generations, men and women have toiled night and day pouring out wealth which has enabled the country to become as great as it is. Therefore, in 1960 one would expect that these people who have served their country so well would be entitled to have their children better protected from the effects of industrial development than has been the case up to now.
As a result of this experience I wrote letter after letter to the Minister of Health, and in most cases the Parliamentary Secretary replied. The replies could not have been couched in more courteous language, but while I appreciate courtesy it is not enough on this occasion. While I also appreciate the Home Secretary's sympathy, that, too, is not enough, because in that city now there are thousands of mothers who, every time their children go out to school or go out to play, wonder what may happen to them. They are rightly using their democratic right to bring pressure to bear on the Stoke-on-Trent City Council and on my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and myself, so that we may have this problem dealt with. We are trying to be worthy of these women and to obtain an undertaking from the Minister of Housing and Local Government that this matter will be treated as one of extreme urgency.
Our city is more undermined by mining subsidence than any other city. Thanks to the action recently taken in the House of Commons we have been able to obtain relative justice after generations of mining, but we suffer not only from mining subsidence but from the existence of more marlholes in the

area than in any other area of the country. There are 47 marlholes in the city, many of them much bigger and deeper than this Chamber. I understand that at least two of them, including one in the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, Central, are at least 70 to 80 ft. deep.
The City Council has taken this matter so seriously that it has instructed its reconstruction committee to conduct a survey into the position. Within one week, thanks to the conscientious officials who serve the City Council, a map was produced showing the 47 marl-holes which are situated within a relatively short distance between the northern and southern boundaries of the city. I have further particulars showing that many of these marlholes are privately owned and that many of them are unfenced.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was good enough to inform me in a letter, which I very much appreciated, that the marlholes owners were compelled, under an Act of Parliament, to put a good fence round each hole. Many children have been drowned during the past twenty years and it is because five children were drowned in June that my hon. Friend and I are now taking advantage of our legitimate Parliamentary right to try to obtain an undertaking that the responsible Ministers will be consulted and that immediate action will be taken.
I am sure that up to now I have carried with me in my argument almost every hon. and right hon. Member present, but so that the House may know that I am not merely speaking for my hon. Friend and myself I should like to read extracts from a newspaper which does not support this side of the House politically. I hope that this will emphasise the case which I am trying to make. The Evening Sentinel, which is a subsidiary of the Northcliffe Press, in a leading article on 21st July, said:
Several children have been drowned this summer in disused marlholes in North Staffordshire. These tragedies have stirred public opinion and the need for new legislation to protect the lives of children from such hazards has been publicly expressed both by Stoke-on-Trent, and Newcastle councils and by other responsible bodies in the area.
To put myself right with Mr. Speaker, and to be on my guard, I must say that I am not asking for further legislation.


I am asking that the Minister should give an undertaking that he will consult immediately with other Ministers to decide, first, the immediate short-term steps to be taken, secondly, the long-term steps, and, thirdly, whether an immediate public inquiry should not be held into this matter.
The leading article from which I have just quoted continues:
In the face of this mass of local opinion the reaction of Government departments is, to the least, unhelpful. Over the years manholes and other artificially-created stretches of accessible water have taken a dreadful harvest of young lives. The powers of local authorities to prevent these tragedies are limited. They can require that disused workings should be fenced off. They cannot compel owners to fill them in. The Government's attitude is that the local authority powers are adequate…
The newspaper adds that a junior Minister replied in the House to a request for further legislation and that his reply showed.
…a complacency almost amounting to callousness.
The newspaper remarked that,
Contrary to what the Government spokesman says, the existing preventive measures are manifestly inadequate.
I could give further quotations which, I think, would assist me in my case, but I think that I nave quoted enough.
I want, first, to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who has been good enough to listen to the reasoned case that I have presented, to consider what has been said and to consider consulting with the Home Secretary in particular and with other responsible Ministers. I hope that before we part with this Bill I shall have support from both sides of the House so that we may, keep this matter on a, level of discussion that will do justice to the question that I have raised.

4.10 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: It is most reassuring that on a day like this my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has been able to raise a matter which is of such urgency and importance to us in the locality we represent. We are particularly grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who has come here at short notice to listen

to what we have to say and to give us, perhaps, some words of comfort and reassurance as to his intentions.
My hon. Friend has raised a problem which affects many hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the area that I represent we suffer very grievously from the activities of industries which have dug great pits in large numbers in places within the city boundaries in order to find the clay to make pottery, roofing tiles and bricks. Within the boundaries of a city of 270,000 people, there are 47 of these great pits, of which 30 are flooded to different depths but all of which are dangerous to any one who cannot swim. Of the 30 that are flooded, three are completely unfenced at the moment, and of the remaining 27 which have been investigated it is reported that the fencing is either "poor", or "very poor". Those are the words of the people who investigated them.
Some owners of these pits have spent a great deal of money, I understand, to try to prevent children hurting themselves and running the risk of losing their lives through drowning. These owners, however, complain that it is difficult to fence the pits with any guarantee of success. We all know what children are like when we remember what we used to do ourselves when youngsters. I have a vivid recollection of risking my life as a child of five—and I often wonder how I avoided being drowned—by launching myself on a single plank of wood on a deep marlhole. This makes us all the more anxious because children may stumble and fall and not be as fortunate as I was.
The Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend will, naturally, be tempted to answer us by saying, "This is a matter for the local authority. It is for you to take action within the powers that are available to you ". I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind that 30 of these 47 pits are privately owned. How are we to get our hands upon them? We are so affected in Stoke-on-Trent that if areas sterilised by pits are added to those sterilised by these great holes, 10 per cent. of the available land in the whole of the City is lost.
We are asking for two remedies. The first is a short-term solution that will have children's lives. That means fencing


the pits in such a way that a child cannot get through. I have seen this kind of fencing in many places where security is needed. I have seen great posts of concrete with interlinked strands of barbed wire through which, I think, no child—not even I, when I was a child—would dare to attempt to break through or break down. That is not the type of fencing that we see around the marlholes in Stoke-on-Trent. Cost should not be allowed to stand in the way, whoever provides the money, whether the local authority through the rates, or the individual owner, of preventing children from drowning.
The long-term solution is, of course, to fill in the pits. That will take a very long time. We are, therefore, anxious to get powers to be able to fill them in. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that we must own the pits before we can fill them in, and also any tips nearby, so that the tips can be thrown into the holes. I recognise the kindness of the House in allowing us to put forward this matter, about which we feel very deeply in North Staffordshire. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend to give attention to this matter now because we shall be away for a long time during the Recess. Will he say that at least he will look at the whole problem not only on behalf of my hon. Friend and myself, but on behalf of all hon. Members?
It has been suggested that there might he a public inquiry into whether existing legislation is sufficient. That was mooted in the Evening Sentinel by the editor himself. I do not know whether that is desirable or not. It is, however, desirable to say to the mothers of these children that we intend to take action. We cannot always guarantee that a child will never be in danger, but we must try to see that children do not drown like this just because they are adventurous. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say that this matter will not be dealt with merely by saying, "It is up to the local authority".

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). They have spoken

of what apparently are technically called marlholes. The particular hole concerning which I wish to say a few words is not a marlhole, but a mine, or quarry hole, We have a quarry hole on the borders of the City of Aberdeen and the County of Aberdeen, and because it is within the jurisdiction of two local authorities, neither, apparently has the right to deal with it. There is the further reason that it is private property.
This mine, or quarry hole, has the rather paradoxical name of Dancing Cairns Quarry. It has been the scene of many tragedies. Like the marlholes of which my hon. Friends have spoken, it is an attractive danger to children. People on both sides of the border, both in the County of Aberdeen and in the City of Aberdeen, are in a state of trepidation and anxiety lest their children, when they go out to play, or when they are on their way to and from school, or are sent out with a message by their parents, should never return and their bodies be found in the deep waters of the hole.
I have put Questions to Ministers on this subject. I have written to the Minister responsible for mines and I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland. But I have never been able to get anything done about removing this danger. This is not merely a constituency matter. There are mine holes, marlholes and quarry holes all over Britain. They are a waste of good land. Most of them are accompanied by tips and a practical way of overcoming the problem is to throw the tips into the holes. In that way, land could be reclaimed. Although the area in each case might be small, in total it would be considerable. That land could be put to a profitable use for the benefit of the people.
By two strokes, two things could be done—the land could be changed from being waste land into land of utility for the community, and a source of many tragedies could be changed into something profitable. Danger would be removed and the lives of children and even of adults would be saved.
The owners of the hole which I have mentioned have made their profits from it for generations. Having dug the hole, they went away, leaving a danger to the community. Some way must be found


of filling in these holes and changing them from dangers into profitable land. It ought not to be beyond the wit of the Government to find a way of doing those two things, uno ictu.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has said. The demand which we from north Staffordshire are making is simple and direct. It is that urgent action should be taken, in the light of a series of tragedies in the last few months in north Staffordshire, to get these dangerous manholes either filled in or covered over.
Personally, I and the members of the local authority which I represent are much more sceptical than my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) about the efficacy of fencing. We know that the power to provide fencing is available, but the trouble about fencing is that it is often inadequate, because of the ingenuity and vigour of modern children, or so elaborate, like that which surrounds top secret establishments like Aldermaston, that one might as well go to the trouble and expense of getting a hole filled in.
As I recently informed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council is in favour of making it compulsory to fill in marlholes after the extraction of the marl. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South mentioned the leading article in our local newspaper, the Evening Sentinel which described the Parliamentary Secretary's Written Answer of 19th July as "complacent". I have to agree with that view in the light of the tragedies which have afflicted the area and which have made mothers throughout Staffordshire anxious in recent months. In that Written Answer, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
Local authorities have powers under Sec ion 151 of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, to require the fencing of disused workings of this kind which are in places accessible to the public; and also have powers under

Section 144 of the Highways Act, 1959, to deal with sources of danger adjoining a street."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 30.]
The point is, as my hon. Friends have said, that many of these dangerous holes, filled with rainwater, do not adjoin streets and, therefore, cannot be dealt with under the Highways Act. Even where action has been taken by private owners to establish some kind of fencing, the fencing is frequently penetrated by children and many of these dangerous pits are in areas close to council housing estates and where many children play.
That is why we would like the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to investigate this matter, perhaps to send its own officials to study the position in north Staffordshire and to investigate the problem on the ground, especially in areas which are densely populated and where it is so easy for children to get to these places, totally ignorant of the terrible dangers which lurk there.
We are glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is in his place and we hope that he will be able to say that the Ministry will urgently investigate the problem and the powers available to deal with it and that he will instigate, through his own machinery or through that of the local authorities, or in conjunction with private owners, the sort of urgent action needed to forestall further accidents.

4.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) for his courtesy in giving me 20 minutes' notice of his intention to raise this matter.
My right hon. Friend is aware of this whole problem and I can assure the House that, in the light of what has been said, he will study the matter urgently and write to the hon. Members concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN TRADE

4.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I beg to move,
That this House recognises the need for political and economic unity in Europe, and would welcome the conclusion of suitable arrangements to that end, satisfactory to all the Governments concerned.
The Motion seems to be simple and clear, but I could wish that it were as easy to make a simple and clear speech about it. The issues are complicated and public discussion of them has suffered from over-simplification. I will try to avoid that and also to avoid being over-complicated.
The first matter mentioned in the Motion is that of European unity, the need for political and economic unity in Europe. I want to make certain points absolutely clear. We in Britain regard ourselves as part of Europe. By history, by tradition, by civilisation, by sentiment, by geography, we are part of Europe. At the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, in January, I said that the fact that the English Channel had not been crossed successfully in war as often as had some other physical barriers in Europe did not disqualify us from European status. The fact that our Queen is Head of the Commonwealth and that we are a member of that association does not disqualify us from European status.
I speak not only of Western Europe. It is true that at the moment there is a tragic division between East and West, a line which runs from Stettin to the Balkans. It is only too true that there are now ancient parts of Europe, formerly closely tied by culture and religion to the centre of Europe which are now on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Russia herself has played a great part in European history. We must accept the fact that many countries of Europe are now temporarily estranged, and, facing reality, in speaking of Europe in my speech today, I shall, for the most part, be referring to Western Europe.
My first point is that if Britain were to be regarded as outside Europe we could not fulfil our complete rôle in the world. Nor do I believe that Europe would be complete without us.
My second point is with regard to the European Economic Community, the Six. We have, from the beginning, welcomed the formation of the Community of the Six as a step towards European unity. We welcome the economic strength and the political cohesion that the Community of the Six is bringing about. In particular, we welcome the new relationship which it embodies between France and Germany. But although we have welcomed the Six from the beginning, we have always been conscious of the danger that it might lead to a political division between us.
That point has repeatedly been made, and I will not elaborate it today except to say that in the present international situation everyone must be increasingly aware of the pressing need for unity in Western Europe. In seeking to avert this division we do not wish to affect the cohesion of the Six as an independent entity, or to prejudice the achievement by the Six of their political goal.
Faced with this problem of the possible division between the Six and the rest of Europe, we tried to solve the problem by putting forward, in 1957, proposals for a European Free Trade Area. We did this with the support of many Governments. Indeed, we did it with the support of all the Governments of the Six. I was repeatedly assured by my French colleagues at that time that they favoured that sort of plan, although they were quite frank about the difficulties which they thought they would have with their Parliament over its ratification. But each of the Governments of the Six declared that they thought that the complement to the Treaty of Rome was the formation of a Free Trade Area in Europe.
However, as we know, in the event those negotiations failed. The plan did not prove acceptable to the Six, although there was a wide measure of support for our proposals. I think that we have to recognise that fact and realise that another set of proposals of the same nature have no chance of acceptance. I think that it is important to make up our minds on that point if we are to make progress in the future.
Because of the failure of those negotiations, it was natural that some countries outside the Six, who, during the negotiations, had shown that they were able


and willing to adopt free trade arrangements, should act together, and this led to the formation of the European Free Trade Association—E.F.T.A.—by the Stockholm Treaty.
We see three advantages in E.F.T.A. First, it is an association of countries with populations of over 90 million, with high living standards, with highly developed industrial and agricultural skills, and it is in itself a powerful economic unit with great opportunities for expanding trade. Secondly, the formation into a group of these seven European countries has helped to preserve cohesion in the European economic system. I am sure that that will be proved to be so in any forthcoming negotiations. Thirdly, the successful negotiation of the Treaty of Stockholm shows that it is possible for us to belong to a purely economic European association consistent with our Commonwealth membership.
Therefore, on this first matter, which is really the first part of the Motion, I state categorically our wish for a united Europe, politically, economically and commercially. But there are different ways of attaining this. Some people talk of integration, others of federation, others of confederation, and others, again, of association. One is not any the less a good European because one prefers one method rather than another. Our purpose is a united Europe, and we accept the need for some political organisation as an element in this unity. That being our objective, what are the problems and how should we seek to proceed?
First, the Commonwealth. I do not think that I need develop in this House the virtues and values of the Commonwealth relationship, the friendship and constant intimate exchange of views between peoples of many different races, amounting to a quarter of the population of the world. I believe that this relationship in the Commonwealth and this successful development of a multiracial association, is of great advantage not only to us but, also, to all our friends in Europe. The strength and cohesion of the Commonwealth is in part, buttressed by its economic pattern, and we have a duty to see that no action of ours in the economic field endangers the

immense political potential of this association.
That is where the first problem arises, because acceptance of a common tariff of the Six, as laid down in the Treaty of Rome, would be the end of the principle of Commonwealth duty-free entry of goods and commodities. It would mean not only putting a tariff on the Commonwealth, but giving free entry to European producers and so a preference to them over the Commonwealth producers except for items on which the common tariff is nil. This would affect a large part of the Commonwealth sales in this country.
If, in addition, we adopted the common agricultural policy of the Six, embodying protection not only by tariffs but by various other means, this would be a further blow to one of the most important parts of Commonwealth trade. That is the first problem that we have to face. I do not for a moment say that it is insoluble, but it is a formidable problem.
The second problem is agriculture. The nature of the common agricultural policy which the Six propose, just as the kind of agricultural policies currently in operation in the individual countries of the Six, is basically different from our agricultural policy in the United Kingdom. Broadly speaking, theirs is a system under which the consumer pays the cost of farm support directly through the price of food in the shop. Ours is a system under which the cost of farm support is met directly by the Exchequer, and, therefore, by the taxpayer. As a result, we have much lower consumer prices in general than the Six. Indeed we have cheaper food than most countries in the world.
A switch to the system proposed by the European Commission could have a severe impact on both the consumer and the producer in this country, and the extent of that impact could be uneven for different farm products, and its effects unpredictable. I think that a switch would involve for us fundamental readjustments in the farm support system, which, I think, has been recognised in this country as being best suited to our particular conditions. This is a problem which we shall have to consider very carefully before we make changes.
The third matter is our commercial relations with third countries. Under the Treaty of Rome, apart from the question of the co-ordination of common policies within the Community, by 1970 members would have to abandon their direct commercial relations with third countries. In our case that would mean, amongst others, the countries of the Commonwealth, and the political consequences of such a development would be far-reaching. We have to remember that we do 84 per cent., I think it is, of our trade with countries outside the European Community, but, by their rules, by 1970 we would have to abandon our direct commercial relations with third countries.
There is also the question of the position of E.F.T.A. We attach great importance to our membership of that Association and we shall always act in the closest consultation with our E.F.T.A. partners. In loyalty to them we must ensure that any plan to secure political and economic unity in Europe takes care of their interests and their preoccupations and is formulated after full discussion with them.
The last problem I wish to raise is that of institutions. It is no use trying to burke this issue and to say that there is not a problem, because there is. What is not yet clear is how the institutions of the Six are to work out. For us, with our traditions in this Parliament, with the contribution it has made to Parliamentary democracy, if the plan is to make this Parliament subordinate to some higher Parliament, it is no light matter.
The relationship of Parliament to other international institutions requires very careful consideration. It is difficult to be more specific in the absence of knowledge as to the precise powers of such a higher Parliament, or Assembly. I can say only this: if the higher Parliament were to control the whole social and economic life of the people, the fiscal policies, the financial systems, the commercial policies, I think that we, as Parliamentarians, would have to think very carefully about what our position would be. The abdication of our powers on these issues is not a matter lightly to be brushed aside, and—

Mr. Frederick Mulley: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will permit me to continue with my argument.
These are 'the problems—I wish to say this, and then I will give way to the hon. Member—and in presenting them I have stated them rather as problems confronting the United Kingdom Parliament. I admit that there are other problems regarding these various issues or difficulties which confront the members of the Six. I do not wish to suggest that this is a one-sided argument and that we are concerned only with our own difficulties and problems. I say frankly that over every one of these issues there are problems concerning every member of the Six.
I have not been trying to put forward a one-sided statement of the position. I realise that in any meeting on these matters there are similar problems involving the other members of the Six.

Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way to me. I think that he is absolutely right to stress the British point of view in these matters. But I am not clear from where he gets the proposed powers for this higher Parliament, whether there is anything in the Treaty of Rome or in discussions amongst the Six about a super-Parliament of this sort. Is it not a fact that if we came in under the existing arrangements we shall be in a much better position to participate in future developments than if we stayed out and allowed those developments to be made without, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, the benefit of our experience?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says. But I qualified what I said by saying that it is not yet clear how 'the institutions will be developed. He must be aware that there is a strong view that there should be a form of federal Parliament. I am saying that we must not burke the issue regarding these institutions. I have not pronounced against us going into some form of European institution, but we have to be careful what these institutions are, what they are to do and what would be our responsibilities in the matter. I have tried to state the problems and issues to be faced. I do not think that they are insoluble; they have to be


solved if we are to conclude these suitable arrangements which are referred to in the Motion.
I do not see how anyone could sensibly advocate that we should now say that we will go into the Common Market on the best terms we can get, sacrificing, if necessary, all those other interests. In my view, to say that, to come in unconditionally on the best terms we could get, would be a completely irresponsible attitude.
I may be told that no one is suggesting that. It may be said that what we should do is to express a readiness to start negotiating on these matters with the Six, to see whether we can get acceptable terms. To that argument, I would reply that Her Majesty's Government, in company with our E.F.T.A. partners, have repeatedly expressed a readiness to discuss these long-term problems with the Six. Bu the fact must be faced, that in the various discussions on these matters in recent weeks the Governments of the Six have made it clear that they are not at present prepared to discuss long-term solutions.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Did the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot give way—

Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is a very important matter.

Mr. Lloyd: They made it absolutely that they are not prepared to negotiate—

Mr. Arthur Holt: On the basis of going in.

Mr. Lloyd: —and I regret this.
The reasons they give are these. They say that the Six have to reach agreement on common policies in many fields and they have to solve many practical problem; in the implementation of the Treaty. Their determination is to push forward with the Treaty and because of that they hesitate to consider the new complications and difficulties which would arise at this stage with, so far as we are concerned, the whole range of relationships, whether in the loosest possible association or in full membership. They have said definitely that at this moment they are not prepared to enter into negotiations on these long-term problems. In com-

menting on that I would say that there is not too much time at our disposal if we are to avoid a division of Europe.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean, as he certainly implied, that we had suggested to the Six, whether formally or informally, that we should be prepared to accede to the Treaty of Rome if negotiations could be opened which would make it easier from the Commonwealth point of view for us to do so?

Mr. Lloyd: That reveals the mistake of giving way in such a debate as this, because that was to be my next point. I have dealt with the paint that we should not come in unconditionally—to me, that would seem absolutely irresponsible—and that, regarding negotiations on long-term problems, the Six have said that they are not ready to negotiate.
Then it will be suggested that if the Six persist in this attitude Her Majesty's Government should announce their own position; that the Government should give what is called "a lead" and put the Six in the position of having to say, "Yes" or "No", to our propositions, or, at all events, be forced to agree to negotiations at present. The wisdom of that course depends on whether one wishes for an agreement or not. If it be just a matter of scoring points, of having a good public posture, this might conceivably be a good plan. But if one genuinely wants agreement, I believe that such an approach would be counterproductive. It would not lead to agreement or negotiation.
We have had, for example, to be very careful in handling the matter of the possibility of the United Kingdom joining Euratom. It is said that we made an offer, but what we did was to agree to consider the possibility. In dealing with a Resolution put forward at the W.E.U. Assembly which was later considered by the W.E.U. Ministerial Council, I had to be careful to make clear that our willingness to examine this proposal was not an attempt to disrupt the Six. Very many people said that it was. We realise the difficulties which exist for them in considering this matter. We have not sought to push that to an issue in which the answer would be, "Yes" or "No"
I have also tried to avoid the rather ridiculous vicious circle in which we


say, "We will not tell you whether we want to come in until you tell us whether you are willing to have us," and they say, "We will not tell you whether we will have you unless you tell us whether you want to come in." We recognise—I do not think that I am in any disagreement with my colleagues the Foreign Ministers of the Six over this matter—that there are problems involved for all of us in this Euratom proposal which have to be identified and examined in the context of the wider unity Which we are seeking. We are proceeding with that process.
I suggest to the House that it would be wrong to say that we will come in to the Common Market unconditionally, because that would be irresponsible, and it is not possible at the moment to negotiate on long-term problems which, I think, will have to be solved before we can get the wider unity which we want. I do not think that it is the right course for us to say, "That is our position. We want an answer," or to say, "Right. You start negotiating about that, whether you want to or not."
That being our view, what do we do in the immediate future? I shall try to put before the House what I think is the course of action we should take. First, we have to develop in every way we can our trade and other relations with E.F.T.A. As I have already said, there are many promising opportunities there. Secondly, there is no reason why E.F.T.A. trade with the Six should not expand, in view of the general prosperity in Europe. This will be our aim and I am not at all sure that there is not a little too much defeatism in some quarters about the future of our trade with the Six.
Next, it is in our interest from every point of view to try to reduce so far as possible the discrimination between the two groups and to play a full part in the G.A.T.T. confdrence this winter in order to bring about a useful reduction in the level of world tariffs. In addition, and perhaps the most important of all, we have to do all in our power to strengthen the political will in Western Europe directly towards achieving satisfactory and suitable arrangements. Without it, there will not be "suitable arrangements"—the words in the Motion—but with that will sufficiently strong there

are bound to be satisfactory arrangements.
A great deal is going on in this direction. There is a considerable movement of Parliamentary opinion in Europe. All right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have been in touch with this European Parliamentary opinion know that there is a developing pressure for agreement, a pressure which I wholeheartedly welcome. I saw a little of that feeling for myself when I went to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in January. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State saw exactly the same on the two occasions in the last nine months when he addressed the W.E.U. Assembly.
On the Ministerial side we are in close and frequent contact with our colleagues in the various Governments concerned. The President of the Board of Trade was at a meeting of the E.F.T.A. Ministers last Thursday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and he attended meetings of the Twenty in Paris on Friday and Saturday last. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be winding up this debate and will be able to answer any questions on those two meetings. I myself have been in almost continuous contact, either directly or through diplomatic channels, with my colleagues the Foreign Ministers of the Six about these matters. We have had repeated discussions on these matters and the very fact that they took place through diplomatic channels does not mean that the whole world knows about them. Ministerially, we are in very close touch about these matters.
Dealing with the mood, I think it significant that only two weeks ago the Committee for the United States of Europe, of which M. Jean Monnet is President, passed a resolution urging that the United Kingdom and the other European countries should become members of the three European Communities. That is quite a different attitude from the exclusive idea of the Six that at one time existed. There is growing evidence of the political will to find a way to the goal of European unity in some form. I say this quite frankly, I think that it would help if we could be given some indication of the attitude of the Six towards the special problems which I have mentioned—particularly the problems of Commonwealth free entry, support for


United Kingdom agriculture and the possibilities of meeting the special needs of our associates in E.F.T.A. I repeat that we are anxious to discuss these matters.
I fully agree that this involves a political relationship just as much as an economic relationship, but both those relationships must depend upon the kind of solutions which may be found possible to the problems and difficulties which I have outlined. When we talk of suitable arrangements, I certainly would not exclude participation in common institution. Therefore, in the absence of discussion of long-term problems with the Six, the courses which I have set out today are what it is best for us to do.
We recognise, however, that none of these courses is a full substitute for a thoroughgoing European solution. In the present state of the world—the current difficulties in East-West relations, the explosive happenings in Africa, the dangers elsewhere—it is obvious that Western Europe must come closer together. I therefore ask the House to state in the clearest possible terms that we recognise the need for political and economic unity in Europe and would welcome the conclusion of suitable arrangements to that end satisfactory to all the Governments concerned. We, for our part, are prepared to work wholeheartedly for that conclusion.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I think that we must welcome the Foreign Secretary to these debates. I was not clear whether he was making his last speech as Foreign Secretary or his first speech as Chancellor. On behalf of those on this side of the House, I have already said a House of Commons farewell to the retiring Chancellor. I did that in the economic debate a fortnight ago and I feel sure that I was speaking for the whole House in what I said on that occasion.
I think that it is too early to express a welcome to the Foreign Secretary to the cares of the Treasury, for at this moment he is rather betwixt and between. Perhaps I would be misleading him if I suggested that he has ever been our idea of an ideal Foreign Secretary, even on the rare occasions when the Prime Minister represented him to be one. From the day during the Suez

crisis when the Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, turned to him and said, "Selwyn, this is your finest hour", he has never looked forward, but during his tenure of the Foreign Office he has always had the grace to answer Questions from the Dispatch Box and not from another Box in another place. [An HON. MEMBER: "Evaded them."] One of my hon. Friends says that he has sometimes evaded them. We hope that whoever succeeds him will follow the constitutional principle of answering for the Foreign Office in this House.
I am afraid that the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman today added nothing to the vacuum which already exists in relation to Britain's policy towards Europe. I do not intend, any more than he did, to go over the history of the past four years, but I would remind the House that the Opposition at the time fully supported the Government's idea of creating a Free Trade Area covering the whole of Western Europe, subject to the various safeguards we spelt out in various debates, those safeguards relating to full employment, the need to protect our foreign exchange reserves and to have an area based on expansion and not one which was exporting deflation from one part of the area to another. Those safeguards I do not need to repeat today.
I was a little disturbed last week to see in a national Conservative newspaper, which appeared the day after a meeting took place upstairs, that I was intending today to accuse the President of the Board of Trade of arrogance in his dealings with Europe. Of course, that is not our case at all. Whatever he may be guilty of, it certainly is not arrogance. I am sure that he has brought to the negotiations in Europe the same blend of bland bonhomie and misdirected energy which he brings to our debates here. If I were to make charges of arrogance they would be directed, not against the President of the Board of Trade but against his predecessor, the present Minister of Education, whose intervention at the crucial Paris Conference in December, 1958, still echoes round the Chancellories of Little Europe. I should not be surprised if it still returns on a hot night to torment


the sleepless hours of the present President of the Board of Trade.
We have still never had an accurate account of what the Prime Minister said to Mr. Dillon in New York. What perhaps matters most is what Europe thought he said. I quote from a London newspaper, appropriately dated 1st April this year:
Mr. Macmillan, according to the worldwide American news agency Associated Press, is reported to have: Insisted that if the French and Germans went on the road towards a united Western Europe. Britain would have no choice but to lead an alliance against them. Recalled that Britain and Russia joined against Napoleon's empire.
Of course, we all know the Prime Minister's liking for these historical rôles. We have had him as Gladstone, Disraeli, and, last year, as Marco Polo. He plays one of these rôles one after another, like an ageing George Arliss. This year we saw him cast himself in the rôle of the younger Pitt. We do not want to interfere with the right hon. Gentleman enjoying himself in this way, but we must ask what effect in heaven's name do utterances of this kind have on Britain's ability to get her views accepted in Europe or to get her sincerity accepted in Europe? We have never had a clear account of what the right hon. Gentleman said. There were attempts at saying that he was misreported, but we ought to have a clearer and a franker account given to the House.
I turn from some of these accidents, or incidents—serious as they have been, as I am sure the President of the Board of Trade would agree if he were free to tell us what he thinks—to the facts of the present situation, and I would emphasise four of them. I think that on the basis of what he said this afternoon I would carry the Foreign Secretary with me in this.
The first fact of the present situation is that the Community of the Six is a reality going from strength to strength. In economic and political terms it has gained a coherence, strength and self-confidence to an extent which perhaps few people—certainly few people in this country—would have thought possible when the Treaty of Rome was signed. I do not think that we shall make any progress towards the solution of the prob-

lems which we face in Europe until and unless we recognise frankly, without reservation and arriére-pensée, that the Six is a reality and that we must not only treat it as such but that we should welcome it. I was glad that the Foreign Secretary went this afternoon a little further than we have heard hitherto in this House in saying that he recognises that fact.
The second fact is that equally the Seven is becoming a reality, despite its more limited objectives. I was glad again that the Foreign Secretary this afternoon was neither apologetic nor depreciatory about what is being achieved in the European Free Trade Area.
Thirdly, the result of all this is that the economic division of Europe is now a fact and we must start from there and not moon about wishing that things were different.
This leads to the fourth fact, that the original seventeen-nation Free Trade Area, as originally conceived, is dead, damned and past hope of resurrection. I was glad again that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made this clear this afternoon. This has been recognised by everyone but the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade. I cannot help feeling that the President of the Board of Trade, whose long and patient efforts to achieve that free Trade Area which we applauded and whose disappointments we shared and sympathised with, still acts as though he thinks that it has all been a bad dream and that one sunny morning he will wake up and find all Europe ready to sign on the dotted line. We cannot go on that theory any longer.
Europe is looking to Britain for a lead and the Government seem to be in a rut. A verb is coming into use in Europe, the verb to "maudle", meaning to maunder on, becoming rather tiresome and button-holing people in favour of a lost cause. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is not arrogant. His position is rather like that of a seedy sandwich-board man outside a Paris restaurant failing to see that the shutters have been put up and standing there while the whole of Europe passes him by.
I turn now to the economic consequences of this division of Europe, and I want to be as objective as I can in a field where, I think the Foreign Secretary


will agree, the facts are obscure and where it is still far too early to be dogmatic. I think it right to say of the present and prospective division of Europe that the real dangers for this country are not so much from a diversion of trade as from a diversion of investment and the means of economic growth.
It is possible, of course, to produce figures showing, if we take the example of exports of cars to the Netherlands, that while today we face the same tariff as the Germans, before long we may be facing a very high tariff of 29 per cent. on our exports while in due course the Germans, will enjoy duty free entry. It would be wrong to generalise from these figures. Tariff walls can be scaled. Our car manufacturers did it with conspicuous success in the United States. The French motor car manufacturers, the nationalised Renault industry, have done and are doing well in scaling a tariff wall as far as this country is concerned.
Moreover, if it is true that it will be marginally more difficult for us to sell in, say, the Netherlands against German, French or Italian competition, equally the Germans and other Community market members will find their markets in Scandinavia and in the other E.F.T.A. countries marginally more difficult for them. I understand that the German equivalent of the F.B.I. has been putting very great pressure on the Western German Government on this issue.
I think it is possible to exaggerate the economic consequences of what is going on. Something like 14 per cent. of our exports go to the Six. Even if as a result of tariff discrimination they were cut by 20 per cent., that would only mean a loss to our total exports of something between 3 and 4 per cent. I think we all recognise that that could be made up in the markets of the Commonwealth and the United States if we saw a little more application and drive being exhibited.
I think that the diversion of investment is much more serious than the diversion of trade, even if we cannot at this stage produce accurate figures as to the scale of the problem. The countries of the Six have been outstripping us for years, long before the Treaty of Rome in the volume and purposiveness of their investment. The spectacular release of self-confidence and energy which has

followed the establishment of the Community has led to a still more rapid expansion and on a much more integrated basis for that investment. But this is not all. There is the magnetic attraction which the Community presents to new American investment and the diversion of that investment from Great Britain and other areas.
The problem is not only one of the volume of physical investment. There is a real danger that Western Europe will attract more "know how" and new techniques, and in a world of rapid scientific advance there is always a real danger that if Britain is out of the main stream we shall become, relatively speaking, a backwater. I do not think that this will happen—at least it in our own hands—but there is always a danger and I think that we should be aware of it. We should remember, too, that some of these investments which are going on in Europe today on sheer technical grounds have got to be on a vast scale. They are capital intensive, so that if an investment of this kind were sited in the Six the rest of Europe may be neglected. Alternatively, if the division in Europe becomes a chasm, we may get wasteful and unnecessary duplication of investment resources, with plants in both areas working below the true economic capacity and level.
There is another argument very much used by those who advocate a decision by Britain to join the Common Market. This is the argument, that the Community is a virile, expanding, dynamic economic area, with the ability to maintain year by year, a rate of growth at least double anything that we look like achieving. So it is argued that if we join the Six we shall be forced to streamline our rather bloated economic structure and become more dynamic. I think that is an argument which cuts both ways. If a middle-aged, portly man seeks to join a bunch of athletes lapping round a track, it may make him more athletic, or, alternatively, he may drop dead or, at best, retire panting from the track.
The plain fact is, and I am sure that the whole House would agree about it, that there is no simple solution to this problem. Assuming that we must be more dynamic, more vigorous and more virile, we shall not do it by joining the Six. The plain fact is that we have to


compete with more dynamic nations both inside and outside the Six, and we shall not evade that competition either by joining the Six or by refusing to join it. The problem is for us, in any case.
We have seen the problem recently in the terms of the figures of exports published by the Board of Trade. For the first quarter of this year, as compared with the first quarter of last year, exports from this country increased by 17 per cent., world exports by 26 per cent., and the exports of the Six by 37 per cent. That is the measure of the sort of problem which we have to work up to, and that is why we welcome the fact that, very belatedly, the Government are turning their attention to increasing exports. After some of the figures that we had last year from the British Export Trade Research Organisation, showing the very small proportion of British firms which are doing a job in the export market, I think there is very much more for the Government to do, as we have pressed upon them for some years past.
The warning is there. The Six are vigorous and virile. They have set themselves a rate of expansion of some 4 to 5 per cent, per annum, which is a rate getting on for double our average rate of expansion over the past eight years. All the signs are that the Six, in common with countries of very different social structure in the East, will go on roaring ahead, and if we do not exert ourselves we shall have to be content with the rather more gentle movement of a backwater.
I want to come, as the Foreign Secretary did, to face the problem of the big decision which we have to take, and it is a decision which we cannot evade—the decision whether we do or do not seek to join the Six. Let me say right away that, as I have argued, the case is not any longer based on crude fears about the diversion of trade. I do not think that that is any longer the significant argument. So far as it is an economic case, it is bound up much more with participation in a group with a more striking record of production, exports and investment. I think it is fair to say that some of the arguments used two or three years ago against joining the Community are less strong now than they seemed then.
Agriculture has been mentioned by the Foreign Secretary, It is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the method of supporting agriculture which we have adopted in this country, different as it is from the rest of Western Europe, would pose a problem for this country, if there were any suggestion of joining the Six, though, of course, presumably, there would have to be very thorough negotiations aimed at dealing with the problem which he mentioned. I would have thought that the Six, at any rate, are now committed, not so much to a system of free trade in agriculture, as to a system of planned marketing, a system which I think is commended more on this side of the House rather than the other.
I do not feel that, necessarily that would have the serious effects on British agriculture which most of us felt there would be when we considered this question a year or two ago. Indeed, the biggest bogy, from the point of view of British agriculture, is Denmark, which has already had to be accommodated within this problem of freer trade, as a result of the formation of the European Free Trade Area.
Then, again, there were those, particularly in the trade unions, a year or two ago, who felt that the problem of social harmonisation would cause increased difficulties for us. It was felt that if we, with the Welfare State which had been created, went into this, serious undercutting of our social standards as a result of free competition from other competing countries with lower social standards than our own would follow. The plain truth is that this is no longer true. A number of countries in the Six are now outstripping us in the provisions they make for social services, and, indeed, as I suggested in the debate a fortnight ago, one argument for going in is that some of these countries are now getting social services at a higher level and that this might prod the Conservative Party into greater activity in raising the social services to a higher level.
The Foreign Secretary was right when he stressed the Commonwealth problem as the greatest and most difficult problem for us. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, when he winds up the debate, will tell us a good deal more about the attitude of the Commonwealth. Would I be right in saying that some of


the older Commonwealth countries are expressing a position of neutrality about joining the Six? Are they saying, "We have something to gain, as well as something to lose, if Britain goes into the Six"? The markets will be expanding for the goods of those countries, but if we go in there is the problem of the preferential rates; they will expect full payment, which will have to come from this country, in a manner with which we were familiar a few years ago. If it be true to say that some Commonwealth countries are no longer pressing as strongly against going into Europe, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will tell us more about that tonight.
If that is so, we have to admit—and I want to be fair about this—that the case for joining the Six is strong. There are formidable arguments for it, and we all appreciate the sincerity of those who advocate it. The fact that on balance the argument I am about to deploy will perhaps lead the other way—and it is a very difficult decision—should not mean that there is no case or that any provisional view which we take today should necessarily be final. My view is that the case for going in is formidable, and whether we go in or not, there will be real disadvantages and real costs to this country in whatever we do. It is not a clear, simple decision; it is a choice of evils.

Mr. Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the next six months that are vital? While we cannot say that we shall never get in if we do not sign now, if we do not take a decision to join now it will probably be extremely difficult to get into the Six in the future.

Mr. Wilson: Frankly, I just do not know, and I do not think that anybody knows. After hearing the Foreign Secretary, I do not think he knows. It world be far too dogmatic in a very fluid situation for anyone to say that the next six months will be vital and that we must now take a decision once and for all on what we intend to do. I do not fee: that I am in a position to give that answer to the hon. Gentleman, and I am somewhat reassured—though I do not always like him on my side—by having seen the Foreign Secretary in a similar mood of honest doubt about it.
Perhaps I may now turn to the reason why, despite the strong case which I

concede exists and which the Foreign Secretary concedes to exist, we cannot take this plunge. First, I will deal with the economic side. As I have made clear, it is easy to exaggerate the economic difficulties, though I am bound to say that we should think twice, and more than twice, before we commit ourselves to an organisation which will mean in the end not merely the loss of our economic sovereignty—because there will be no future for us or for the world if we are not prepared to compromise very seriously on our sovereignty, and not only our economic sovereignty—but will mean virtually relinquishing control of our own economic policies. This is a point of very great relevance to us on this side of the House.
Moreover, as I suggested a fortnight ago, to join the Six means redeploying our resources, re-orientating our economy even more than it is today, in the direction of producing consumer goods, and basing our trade on an overspill from our own consumer goods market.
Having mentioned the economic arguments, I feel, as the Foreign Secretary feels, that it is the political arguments which are the strongest. Let us make no mistake about it: the motivation of the Community is political and federal in character, especially amongst those able public servants who form its central administration and provide a great deal of its inspiration. Is that motivation right for us? That is the question that we have to answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Healey) will no doubt deal with this much more fully this evening, if he is successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye, but I suggest that surely all of us are agreed in this House that the United Kingdom has a very important rôle to play in easing tension between East and West, and I have some doubt whether the same desire necessarily exists among the members of the Six.
I have some doubt whether the same desire exists in certain quarters among all the members of the Six. Probably I can say this more easily than can the Foreign Secretary. If we were to join the Six and to become closely identified with the foreign policy of some of the Governments within the Six, I have some doubt whether we should have the same


freedom and the same room for manœuvre, at perhaps a critical time, in seeking to build a bridge, say, between the Soviet Union and the United States or between the United States and China as I believe Britain ought to seek to build, and to be prepared to build, at any time. I have my doubts about that. I will put it no higher.
Last year, on his visit to Moscow, the Prime Minister seemed to be flirting with the idea of disengagement in Europe and with the idea of a nuclear-free zone in Europe, which had been put forward from these benches. When he did that he seemed to give hope that there was a possibility of easing world tension and tension between East and West. The tragedy was that he was pushed in one quarter and another, and for one reason and another, away from that policy after he returned from Moscow, and that is one reason why the Summit Conference failed. I wonder whether it would be possible for a British Foreign Secretary, if we became members of the Six, to take the initiative which we all hoped was about to be taken at that time? I put that only as a question, but it is a question to which every hon. Member has to find the answer.
There is also the question of our rôle in the world. The Foreign Secretary rightly referred to our political rôle within the Commonwealth. I think that all of us want particularly to stress Britain's rôle not so much among the older members of the Commonwealth as among the newer members of the Commonwealth—the newly emerging Commonwealth, given their freedom, who, to the delight of all of us, in most cases want to stay within the Commonwealth and to maintain a special link with this country.
I wonder whether, as a member of the Six, we should have the same ability to give a lead to them and to work with them, particularly in view of the growing power of the Afro-Asian bloc in world affairs. I wonder whether we should have the same freedom and the same ability to do that if we were full members of the Six? I only put the question, without feeling very dogmatic about the answer, but I think I know what the answer is. It is not that we on this side of the House are against much closer

ties, politically or indeed militarily, with Western Europe, but we believe that these ties should be developed and strengthened within N.A.T.O., not within an ostensibly economic community.
I must turn to one very big practical question, with which the Foreign Secretary dealt. Suppose we decided to join and that we were able to enter on terms possible and acceptable to us. Would France agree to our joining? There are suspicions on the Continent that if we sought to join now we should be doing it because we should be a Trojan Horse, if not to destroy the Community from within—I do not think that that is in anyone's mind—at any rate to alter its direction and to alter the basis on which it is being organised.
It is true to say that in France, particularly among the patronat, there are still many who fear British competition. With remarkable success they have absorbed the first impact of German competition following devaluation and following their own rather more purposeful economic policies and their export drive. But I think that there are many in industry in France who would be horrified at the thought of having to absorb British as well as German competition. That is why I query whether we should be given a welcome if we proposed to join.
In any case, there is no doubt at all that if we joined it would mean a very substantial redrafting of the Treaty of Rome. The Treaty was the result of years of very hard work. It is a very delicately balanced Treaty, balancing one country's interests against those of another country, and it is quite unthinkable that, from the point of view of the Six, Britain could just join and sign that Treaty. Our joining, as a powerful economic country with world trading relations, would destroy the whole balance of that Treaty.
From our point of view there are many aspects of the Treaty which we could not possibly accept. For example, there is the problem of overseas territories. The French have been successful in obtaining an access to the markets of Western Europe for their overseas territories in Africa. It is quite unthinkable that we could join the Six and not have a similar freedom of entry for the products of British overseas territories and


former British overseas territories. From that point of view alone, therefore, a very substantial redrafting would be necessary, and no one pretends for a moment that it would be easy.
I want to turn to another very serious practical problem referred to by the Foreign Secretary—our commitment to E.F.T.A. This is a commitment, I remind the House, approved only a few months ago practically unanimously in the House. I say "practically unanimously", because I think that the Liberal Party united to vote against it. Apart from that, it was unanimously supported by the House, and in my view rightly supported. We were right to take that lead with our associates in Scandinavia. Switzerland and Austria in forming E.F.T.A.
Let us be quite clear that we cannot pull out now. There are at least three members of E.F.T.A. who cannot join the Six—Austria, Switzerland and Sweden.

Mr. Holt: Why not?

Mr. Wilson: They consider that they cannot. I have been discussing it very fully with some of their representatives this weekend. They believe that on political grounds they cannot join the Six. They believe that they cannot do so on grounds of neutrality. The Austrians believe that they are forbidden on Treaty grounds to join anything which would smack of an Anschluss with Germany.

Mr. Holt: That is not in the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Wilson: It is not a question of what is in the Treaty of Rome. It is a question of what is in the minds of our friends from Austria, Sweden and Switzerland and what is in the treaty which Austria signed with Russia at the end of the war.

Mr. Holt: There is nothing in that Treaty to stop them, either.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member is free to make his own interpretation. I can only tell him the views of the Austrian Government and others. I do not think that it is for anyone in the House to force the Austrian Government into some preconceived notions which may or may not be pleasant to the hon. Member and Bolton, West (Mr. Holt). I recognise

that Bolton. East has a very different problem.
I have said that these three countries cannot join the Six. And we could not desert them and make separate terms with the Six, even if we wanted to. I say "even if we wanted to". Let us be clear that the economic arguments for a close association with our partners of the Seven are at least as strong as those for joining the Six. But that is not the only issue. Our word is pledged, and I believe rightly pledged. We cannot go back on it now and take our stand simply on that grand old moral principle in relation to the Six. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
I ask the House to think what the effect would be of our walking out on the Seven. I have been trying to find out what "Perfidious Albion" sounds like in Swedish, and I gather that it is far from euphonious. Suppose that we listened to the arguments of those who say that we should join the Six and decided to join the Six. Suppose that—and the Foreign Secretary indicated that it is a very arguable point—we were not welcomed into the Six. Or suppose that we were met with a decision that our application be deferred to this date two years, or something equally humiliating—which is a distinct possibility. We should then have destroyed the Seven, we should have failed to join the Six and I believe that we should be distrusted in Europe for all the years there are to come. We should live in a state of isolation which would be anything but pleasant.
I should have liked the Foreign Secretary to tell us a little more about the Seven and about the Government's view on the future of the Seven. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade will do that tonight. How do the Government regard the Seven? Do they regard it as a strategic bargaining counter which failed or as a trade development valuable in itself if we fail to get anything better? This weekend I attended a conference of Socialist Parties of Western Europe representing the Six and the Seven, who discussed these problems in a realistic and constructive way. I was very struck by what one very wise old statesman said, "We never regarded E.F.T.A. as an alternative to a broader European


market. Its main aim is to be the first step towards a wider European market, to a common, united, single market. If it has to, it can stand on its own feet. It might have to do so, but this is not how we envisaged it." I hope that the President of the Board of Trade tonight will endorse those words, because I think that that is the right way in which we should look at E.F.T.A.
I ask the Government what they see as the future of E.F.T.A. I hope that it is realised that it will have to stand alone for some further period of time. Is it being fully staffed? Is it being adequately speeded up? Are the Government co-operating to the full in the provision of staff and essential services? It is vital, having signed the Agreement, that we should make it a reality. I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether we are ready, as the Six are ready, to speed up the processes of liberalisation in the area. They are speeding up their liberalisation still further; why should we not do as they are doing? For all the reasons that I have given, I conclude that we cannot contemplate ditching E.F.T.A. and making a separate approach to the Six.
What do we do now? What is the way forward? I am not trying to indicate that what I am suggesting is particularly revolutionary. A good deal of what I say accords with what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, we should recognise, and make plain that we accept, the success of the Six, and be quite frank in recognising its political motivation. We have been too slow in doing this in the past. I was glad that the Foreign Secretary did it clearly today. We should recognise that it has come to stay—indeed, we should do more and welcome the motives of those who want to unite in Europe. In any case, after a thousand years of Franco-German bloodshed, it is something that is worthy of our highest support. It is something which is historic in the annals of this European continent to feel that there are statesmen in Western Europe who are trying to build up a system in which this fighting on the Rhine shall be a thing of the past. Let us make that very clear.
Secondly, when we have dispelled the suspicions that surround our own motives—I do not think that I am unfair in saying that there have been suspicions

about them—let us press the Six to do all they can to encourage closer integration covering the widest possible area by first of all working now to the lowest possible external tariffs. It should be our aim and theirs to get the lowest possible external tariffs. But, of course, if we are to ask the Six for that in sincerity and conviction, it follows that Britain, which has some of the highest industrial tariffs in the world, must be prepared to initiate substantial reductions in her own tariffs.
Thirdly, in G.A.T.T. and elsewhere, we should try to negotiate, on a mutual basis, reductions in those tariffs of special interest to our European partners. In a mutual process, we should be prepared in particular to deal with those items in which they are interested and ask them to deal with those items in which we are interested. This would help to draw the Six and the Seven together. The Government should give a lot more thought to the functional approach put forward by the late John Edwards in the debate on 12th February, 1959, when he suggested a much more careful examination commodity by commodity, pointing out that over a very wide range the differences in tariffs between our system and the Commonwealth's and those in Europe were not so great as many people thought.
Is there anything more that we can do? Before I sit down I should like to refer to one suggestion for a new initiative which has been put forward in more than one European country. The argument is that failure so far has been due to failure on the part of the members of the Seven to recognise the "oneness", the unity, the integration of the Community, in a futile attempt to try to get the Six as six countries to come into a kind of association we like. Any new initiative should be based on recognition of the unity of the Six.
That is why there are those who have proposed that the Seven should invite the Community, not as six countries but as one economic unit, to join a looser association, doing so not as members numbers eight to thirteen, but as member number eight. This would fully recognise the political aspirations of the Community and put forward the free trade area proposals, not as a means of holding the community back, but as a means of enabling it to work more


closely with its European neighbours. If thought that there were any real hope of this proposal being accepted, I would strongly urge the Government to take such an initiative.

Mr. Martin Maddan: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what would be the difference between having the Six becoming member number eight in the Seven and revising the original free trade area proposals?

Mr. Wilson: The difference is that whereas the original free trade area proposals invited the Six to join separately, with each country, in its relations with the several other countries, following the same rules, this new proposal would recognise the Six as a unit with a political and federal motivation and a degree of economic harmonisation and integration going far beyond anything ever contemplated for the original Seventeen. Therefore, it would be recognised as a community and as one very special and big country within the free trade area. If there were any hope of this being accepted, it would go a very long way to break down the division between the two parts of Western Europe, but, to be frank. I think that there are very serious doubts.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Would this suggestion that the Six should join the Seven not contradict the idea of the unity of an external tariff?

Mr. Wilson: I do not think that it would, because they could still have their own external tariff but would have a special relationship within the Thirteen. I Jo not think that it would interfere with that at all, any more than it is intended that within the free rade area our freedom of action vis-à-vis the Commonwealth is affected. The real doubt is whether it is at this stage acceptable to the Community.
We have to take account of this problem. When the attempts to unify Western Europe broke down two or three years ago, two clubs were formed, each with separate rules, with separate subscriptions, with separate badges and club ties. They were the Six on the one hand and the Seven on the other. I do not think that we can now ask, with confidence, the Six to come along and

buy a tie with sevens all over it. That is a little difficult. That is why we shall have to work towards a new initiative.
It will not be speedy. It cannot deliver results next week or next month. We could, perhaps, call it a Commonwealth of European Nations to enable the Six to preserve its identity and the Seven to be associated in something which accepts the common obligations of freedom of trade and positive joint economic cooperation directed towards an expanding economy in Europe.
We must also be outward looking. This Motion refers to Europe, and so far all the references to Europe have been references to Western Europe. There is, of course, a far wider division in Europe than the one between the Six and Seven. There is the one between East and West. Whatever we do in the West, we should positively and wholeheartedly work for closer relations, not only political, but economic, between East and West.
We on this side of the House have pressed this very many times, long before it was fashionable to do so and long before the Prime Minister went to Moscow. I remember the discussions we had. It seems a long time now since the Prime Minister was resisting it. I forget what he was at the time—Foreign Secretary or Minister of Defence or Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he resisted the suggestion that we should export trawlers to the Soviet Union, which were banned on so-called strategical grounds if they went faster than eight knots. Since then, we have seen the Russians sending a lunik to photograph the reverse side of the moon at a speed very much in excess of eight knots. Thus, in our attempt to solve this division in Western Europe, I hope that we are not being too introvert and will be much more outward looking.
I know that that will be the desire of the Government in relation to trade with the outside world and the Commonwealth. We fully support that. I hope also that when the Foreign Secretary comes to talk about Europe in terms of economic affairs, he will think not only of Western Europe but also of trade between East and West, and strengthen those economic associations, such as O.E.E.C., that are designed to help to


achieve greater trade between East and West. Today, however, our immediate problem is that of the Six and the Seven.
I have indicated the measures that I think might be taken, and I would stress one immediately urgent step. Everybody in this debate will doubtless pay lip-service to the idea of a united Europe. I ask the Government, in their negotiations in Europe, to press that both parties, the Six and the Seven, should now make a clear and joint declaration of intent. The Seven have done this already—let them repeat it; and let the Six make a declaration, too, that whatever the immediate difficulties, both parties, or both groups of parties, regard the present division in Europe as a regrettable and temporary phase, and pledge themselves to work unceasingly and without reservation for a single, united, economic community for Western Europe.

5.41 p.m.

Sir Anthony Hurd: It is rather remarkable that both the Foreign Secretary, speaking for the Government. and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) have so wholeheartedly welcomed and accepted the Six. Until a few months ago we had many reservations about how the Community would work out, or whether it would work out at all. It is remarkable, therefore, that we have started this debate today with that acceptance and that welcome.
We are founder partners in the Seven, so we are bound to accept that, and to work for a bridge between the Seven and the Six. It was with that object that we went ahead with our friends in the Seven. We all recognise that divisions in Western Europe are a bad thing for the free world and weaken us in the face of international Communism. Many people will say that not only in this House, but outside it. But how far can we, in Britain, go in this new, exciting—and, perhaps, dangerous—partnership that is projected in Europe?
There must be some limits. I do not think that we should participate in schemes of political unity in Europe that would over-rule our sovereignty, and our bonds with the Dominions and Colonies. I am quite clear about that myself, and so, I am sure, are many others. If we did hamstring ourselves

like that we should not be true to our responsibilities, as Britain and as the senior partner in the Commonwealth. We have our special contribution to make to world affairs, and I am sure that we can do it most effectively by standing on the touchline of the Continent of Europe rather than being right in the centre of political entity in Europe itself.
I am not nearly so sure that there are good reasons for keeping apart from a trade association in Europe. It is said that British agriculture could not stand that, and that our especially close relations with the Commonwealth countries would be jeopardised. Both, of course, are chiefly concerned with the supply and marketing of primary products, food and raw materials. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the Commonwealth trade problems are especially difficult, but I do not think that they are insoluble.
I was in Australia in May and talked to some businessmen there. I found them not at all adverse to an association—maybe at one remove, through Britain with Europe that would give them, they thought, better opportunities to sell their wool to advantage, possibly their meat and butter and, maybe, their cheese. They felt that Australia—and I think that this applies to New Zealand too—must look for wider markets, and not be content with such preferences—and they are rather meagre—that are afforded them in the British market. Those two Dominions would be quite open minded about the advantages of association, through us, with a trading group in Europe.
The benefits for our Colonies and some other Commonwealth countries are more in doubt. There are West African countries, with their oil seed interests, and the West Indian countries, with their sugar interests. They would be much more difficult to fit into the picture than would the Australian and New Zealand interests. These problems are complex, but I do not think that the advantages in the Commonwealth are all on one side or on the other.
I should like to say something about British agriculture's attitude. I have little fear about British agriculture's capacity to compete at level pegging with the Continental countries in any project for a managed market that is likely to be


papers some very optimistic accounts of proposals for a completely unified agricultural market in Europe—almost an international marketing scheme running right through the Six countries. Several years must elapse before that can be worked out clearly in practice and I myself doubt whether it will ever come about.
Britain has an efficient agricultural industry. Some will point to our subsidies. Well, that is how we support our apiculture. In some cases, the Continental countries have a much more complete and rigid system of support, by means of import quotas, tariffs and minimum price systems. If we wanted to join a trading group in Europe I do not think it would be impossible to fit our system of price guarantees under the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957 into a wider scheme of managed markets and agricultural support which the other countries in Europe will certainly want to continue. I am sure that they will, and we should not be all that much out of line.
The most difficult question will be our horticulture, particularly in competition with the seasonal supplies from Italy and the countries where they have warmer sun than we, and where market supplies come forward much earlier in the year. If we want to maintain our horticulture we shall have to apply just those kinds of measures that the Continental countries have applied, and which they will want to continue to apply, to maintain their own industries for which they have a special regard. Therefore, I do not think that either in agriculture or horticulture we need fear too much that by entering a trading group we must abandon those interests. There must be give and take.
If we did go into a managed market, it would mean, as the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, that our food prices would go up. The consumer would pay more real prices and there would be less subsidy to be met by the taxpayer. That is something we should consider. At present, there is a very big subsidy on eggs. In a managed market, that subsidy would possibly be cut by half. We must keep in mind that there is here a pro and a con. It is a great benefit for us, competing in the world with our industrial goods, to have the low-cost, high-standard food supplies which we at

present get under our system. We would have to weigh that against the advantages coming to us from maintaining entry and improving our access to the Continental markets for manufactured goods and indeed some agricultural produce.
The views of this side of the House were made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2nd June, when he said:
There are good economic reasons for this"—
that is, for our system of agricultural support—
and good social reasons, too. These considerations, you can be quite sure, will be very much in all our minds as we go ahead with the intricate negotiations that are taking place about European trade.
I accept that, and I was glad that my right hon. and learned Friend again underlined this afternoon. We will not have our agricultural policy dictated by Continental interests. Surely, we learned our lesson between the wars, when we let our land run down in condition. We then had to strive in 1939, 1940 and 1941 to reawaken production, and that was very wasteful in time and costly. We do not mean to let our land run down again and leave our food supplies at the mercy of any aggressor with submarines. Surely we are not going to learn that lesson all over again.
Since the war it has become necessary to consider this in terms of trade as well as defence. Our agriculture has contributed markedly to strengthening our balance of payments, I believe by about £400 million a year. Treasury pundits are always chary of accepting any figure, but there is a considerable strengthening in our balance of payments position if we use our land fully. To abandon that in the interests of European unity would weaken our trading position as well as our status and place in the world. That could not be good for us, or, indeed, for our partners. I am sure that full farm output here will be needed so far as one can foresee.
We need, in the discussion of these problems of European trade, to ensure that our own agriculture continues to hold due share of the home market. At present, we are supplying about two-thirds of the kinds of food which can be produced here—that is, disregarding


oranges and the tropical sorts of product. I think that that is about right for our balance of payments position and, indeed, reasonable so far as our partners in a wider trade association are concerned I do not worry about the prospect of a managed market in Europe and the possibility of maintaining our system of price support in balance with the protective measures which the other countries in Europe will want to retain.
If we do nothing, if we are the odd man out, what is the prospect? I am afraid that we should find ourselves, as European agriculture develops, with their surpluses tipped over here regardless of price. Should we then be in a position to use the anti-dumping legislation? We have always been slow and doubtful about using that sanction to food. We have been more ready to use it when applied to industrial products, but I am doubtful if that is sound policy, to rely entirely on anti-dumping laws against European surplus supplies, which might be French wheat or Italian vegetables.
Surely it is better to contemplate coming to some arrangement which will balance supplies and prices on a basis that will not leave us so far out of line with the other countries of Western Europe. That is how we can best play our part, and I am encouraged by the line which the Foreign Secretary has taken this afternoon. He is moving on the right lines. We may well find that the other peoples of Western Europe will, when they have sorted out their own immediate problems, welcome us as prospective partners who can add a real strength in terms not only of trade, but of political wisdom to a vigorous and more vital Europe.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I do not know whether the speech by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon was his swan song from his present Department, but if it was he ought to be highly gratified that so far in the debate he has received support from both sides of the House, including powerful support from my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) today. I, too, am about to lend my support.
We have listened to the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) speaking, as he frequently does in this House, for

agricultural interests, and today we have heard from him that there is very little more to be said on that issue, although quite a lot used to be said by Tory Members of Parliament and Tory farmers. I well understand why. Since the E.F.T.A. agreement was entered into and the arrangement was made to satisfy Denmark, the agricultural issue, certainly in relation to us joining the Six, which I suggest is not possible, diminishes in importance in the minds of many Members and of the interests that support them in the country.
However, there is one sentence in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon that I should like him to elucidate further. Diplomacy has remarkable habits of double entendre. The Foreign Secretary, in his speech, said, "If Britain is considered outside Europe we could not fulfil our rôles." Our rôles inside Europe are contained in N.A.T.O. and Western European Union, amongst other organisations, and there is no doubt that one of the many important rôles that Britain is assuming and has assumed since the Paris Agreement is a military rôle.
I wondered when I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in what seemed an otherwise innocuous remark, whether it had more significance, and that perhaps even if it might have no particular meaning for me our Continental neighbours might read into that remark a threat. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant it as such, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton referred this afternoon to the alleged remarks of the Prime Minister in Washington, which, even though they were denied in that form, were obviously mentioned in some sort of context, I think that we should make ourselves as clear as possible to those with whom we want to do business. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said clearly that the whole purpose of Her Majesty's Government was to come to an arrangement not only with the Six but with the whole of the European partnership.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The last thing that I wanted to do in my speech was to make any particular threats of any sort. I was not thinking


at all of what the right hon. Gentleman suggested I have always said that I thought that if there were an economic division in Europe it might have serious consequences to political cohesion. In the remarks that I made about regarding ourselves as a part of Europe I merely said that if we were cut off from that of which we are a part, we could not fulfil our complete rôle. That is all I meant. There was no suggestion of any particular threat of removing ourselves from any European or Atlantic association.

Mr. Bellenger: I am glad to hear that, although I am bound to say, on hearing that remark from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that even if the Six or the Seven remained as they are I cannot see how we should be cut off. We should still have our trade associations. I understood that one purpose of the Seven was to cement the relationship between the Seven and the Six. I should not have thought that we should be cut off from N.A.T.O. or O.E.C.D., Which is to take the place of O.E.E.C.

Mr. Lloyd: I must get this clear. I made that remark at the beginning of my speech. I was speaking of the suggestion that we in this country, the United Kingdom, were not part of Europe at all. I was not talking of our association with the Six or the Seven. I was talking of the idea that this island—because it is an island off the coast of Europe—should not be regarded as pant of Europe. I was dealing with that part of the argument. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Six and the Seven.

Mr. Bellenger: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He will appreciate that he has been misunderstood on more occasions than one during his tenure at the Foreign Office.
However, I wish to apply my remarks to that I imagine will form the basis of this debate this afternoon. There are two trains of thought. One is that it is impossible to join the Six, and the other, I gather from the Liberal Party which is supported by some of my hon. Friends behind me, judging by their signatures which have been appended to a certain document, and I suspect by some hon. Members opposite, that we should join the Six. Those are the two proposals.

One is that we should join the Six, and the quicker the better, and the other, enshrined in the Government Motion, is that we should use a little caution and try to get a system which can contain both the Six and the Seven to the mutual benefit of all.
I wish to give certain reasons why I think that those who suggest that we ought to join the Six are barking up the wrong tree completely. The Economic Community of the Six is based on the Rome Treaty. That is a definite Treaty and the Provisions in it are specific. It is quite clear to anyone in either official or unofficial circles who has had any connection with Continental nations, particularly Germany and France, that the Six will not alter the road that they have taken. Indeed, they mean to move as fast along that road as they possibly can.
Whereas the Rome Treaty provided for complete integration within fifteen years, I think, of the signing of the Treaty, there is now, as we know, an attempt to speed up the movement along the road towards complete integration. Although the suggestions of Professor Hallstein have for the time being been deferred, it is quite clear that, by the end of this year, the countries of the Six will have entered on the next phase of their agreement based on the Rome Treaty, towards, even closer integration and, of course, the making of a common external tariff.
There is no doubt that the external tariff of the Common Market Powers will affect us considerably. It is a remarkable coincidence or, perhaps, more than that, a natural consequence of the freeing of trade between the Six Continental countries, that our own country, besides the Common Market countries, has benefited considerably by this expansion of trading, and I see no reason to fear that British trade will not continue to play its part in what evidently will become a vast expansion on the Continent among the Economic Community Powers.
There is, of course, the danger of the external tariff. I do not know how that will be overcome. Whether it is possible for Her Majesty's Government by some method or other to induce the Common Market Powers, in association or in negotiation with the Seven or, perhaps,


an even wider circle, to modify the external tariffs which they seem to be determined to make, to our disadvantage, at any rate, speaking for our own country, I do not know. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will tell us whether any proposals which the Government have to offer will alleviate the hardship which I think that will entail for this country.
I wish to put several points to those of my hon. Friends who favour our joining the Six. The Rome Treaty contains very important provisions which, although the Trades Union Congress has generally approved them, would not, I think, be quite so acceptable to the trade union movement when they came to be implemented. The Rome Treaty provides for mobility of capital, for mobility of labour and, of course, for mobility of finance. I cannot see the trade union movement in this country accepting the unrestricted importation of, for example, Italian labour, or even its importation to the extent that is accepted in Germany, France or Belgium. In my view, my hon. Friends in the movement to which I belong should be quite explicit on these points when they advocate adherence to the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. John Hynd: My right hon. Friends says that we should be quite specific. Will he say where in the Rome Treaty it is provided that there should be unrestricted mobility of labour? As I understand it, the Rome Treaty does nothing of the kind.

Mr. Bellenger: It certainly provides for mobility of labour. I believe that there are about 100.000 Italian workers in France today.

Mr. Hynd: They want them.

Mr. Bellenger: Of course they want them. Today, or presently, when our labour position becomes somewhat strained, we might want them, too. There was a time when it was suggested that foreign labour should come into the coal mines of this country because we needed it, because the coal industry needed it. I represent a coal mining constituency, and I can speak with first-hand knowledge. Whether we like it or not, the miners were not prepared to welcome the importation of foreign coal miners, and I suspect—even though it may not be un

restricted, the principle is there in the Rome Treaty—we should have to accept foreign labour in far greater numbers than we are prepared to accept at present.
I do not say whether this is right or wrong. What I am saying is that my hon. Friends who are prepared to advocate adherence to the Treaty of Rome should be explicit on the point and say whether they accept that provision wholeheartedly. Just as there would have to be, as the hon. Member for Newbury said, checks and balances applied in any arrangement for agriculture, so we should have to apply checks and balances in respect of the importation of foreign labour into many of our industries. Let us remember that, although we may as individual Members of Parliament give our own views, we represent constituents in this country. We do not represent necessarily or solely an ideal, a Continental ideal, to which most of us subscribe but about the implementation of which, on the basis which the Six have adopted, many of us are doubtful.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton mentioned at the end of his speech a proposal of which he had heard. I was speaking to someone in Germany who holds an important official position there, and he told me that Germany would not be averse to belonging to a wider free trade area but, he went on to say, the Six would, first, have to be accepted as one complete entity in any negotiations which took place for a wider free trade area which the Six or, at any rate, Germany, for which he was speaking, would be prepared to join.
I ask hon. Members to consider why the Six came into being. When one does this, one sees clearly why the countries of the Six cannot now throw away what they have achieved. At the end of the war, Germany, France and Italy were in chaos; their industry and their political system were dismantled, very largely, both physically and spiritually. The statesmen of those countries—I give them credit for their foresight—saw that, if they were to continue like a lot of Balkan States dealing with the great Powers individually, they would be treated like Balkan States.
Every indication from behind the Iron Curtain of what happens to small Powers


which cannot stand up for themselves and which are treated as satellites is certainly prominent in the minds of all those statesmen who are not in the sheltered position which we in this country, in spite of the considerable losses we suffered as a result of the war, have enjoyed. I do not, therefore, blame them for one moment for trying to get together as a unit.
One of their aims has been the mobilisation of capital, not only capital from their own resources but capital from far away. America is supporting the idea of the Common Market not only politically but economically; her manufacturers and her financiers are rushing to gain entry into the Common Market. The same applies to British manufacturers, too. I have extracts from reports in he financial newspapers of different British firms which have linked with German or French firms to get a foothold in the new Common Market.
I therefore agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton when he says that the damage to our own industry will not be as great as many people imagine. I am not prepared, at any rate, to be panicked into a position which we refused to accept when the Rome Treaty negotiations were proceeding. All the arguments which can be advanced to day for joining the Common Market could have been advanced then, and I do not remember any great hullabaloo from either side of the House at the time the Rome Treaty was being negotiated.
What I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, although again he may find himself in a different position shortly, is this. I would not pay him the same tributes which my right hon. Friend paid him. I think that he has been hard working, and wet the House know that he has a very genial exterior, but I have a feeling that he, prodded by his colleagues in the Cabinet, has a rigid outlook on these matters which has tended to create in the minds of many leading people on the Continent the feeling which they describe as "the Maudling manner". I do not want to overstress the point, but I regret that there is a feeling on the Continent that he, who had charge of these negotiations and was, I believe, chairman of the committee set up to investigate the possi-

bilities, has caused a good deal of irritation.
The right hon. Gentleman may brush that off and say that all politicians come in for that at some time or another, but my right hon. Friend was quite right in urging the Government, whatever they did, to create an image of this country in its negotiations which is, if I may use the banking term, creditworthy. There is no doubt whatever—it is no good denying it, although members of the Government may do so—that, as a result of the Prime Minister's remarks in Washington, there immediately came a reaction in the way we have known for so many years that we, perfidious Albion, were getting ready to do a deal with somebody else. I am not at all sure that a deal cannot be done with somebody else. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton hinted at it.
There is a tremendous possibility of trade between East and West. Two great Powers, Russia and China, are, as it were, shut off from a lot of Western trade. That raises very big political problems, but let us make no mistake about it that, although the political system in Germany may be very anti-Communist, the businessmen of Western Germany are not averse to doing business when they possibly can behind the Iron Curtain. All that I would say is this. If keeping a free band politically will enable us to expand our trade not only in Europe but wider afield, then what are the advantages of rushing and saying to the Common Market countries, "Please let us join"? I do not think for one moment that they will believe we are genuine.
It may be possible—and I think that one of my hon. Friends may suggest it—to get a phased entry into the Common Market, but I believe that when that time comes we shall have got something wider than the Common Market. We shall have got European free trade on a basis which we can honourably join which is not possible at present even if we applied to the European Economic Community to join. As my right hon. Friend suggested, I think that there is room for considerable negotiation on tariffs within a wider ambit, namely, G.A.T.T. It is possible that we shall be able to proceed to a greater liberalisation of trade within G.A.T.T. I do not


care what the instrument is as long as we have freer trade.
I do not know about the political situation, but I feel that the Six dare not let the situation politically get to a point when they antagonise or alienate this country, however much moral support they may get from America. Judging from my talks with German businessmen, I think that they are now making trade arrangements within trade associations and in other ways to minimise the effect which the external tariff will have when it comes into operation. There is a genuine feeling—I can say this without fear of challenge—in Germany and I believe in Holland particularly for closer arrangements in trade between this country and the European Powers.
Therefore, I am not so pessimistic as some hon. Members may be on the possibility of coming to some arrangement. If course, it is no good jobbing backwards, but we may job as far back as a speech which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) made fourteen years ago, when he pleaded for closer integration in Europe. He said:
The first step in the recreation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany…"—
it has come about—
within the United Nations. We must recreate the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America and I trust Soviet Russia—for then indeed all would be well—must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe.
It is a remarkable thing, but I believe that it is true that Russia has applied to be a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I should like to quote from a very enlightening and interesting report, which I think most hon. Members have had, of the Assembly of Western European Union, and I would urge hon. Members to read it if they have not already done so. It is Document 168 by the Rapporteur of the General Affairs Committee, on which were Members of both sides of the House. This Report makes a positive suggestion with regard to the Commonwealth. Like my right hon. Friend, I do not think that the Commonwealth is such a stumbling block as many of us would make out to agreement in Europe. The Rapporteur states:

However, a general line of approach might be suggested which would be to develop simultaneously, in a complementary way as far as possible, the common external tariff and the preferential tariffs between the Commonwealth and Britain so that the opening of new markets benefits both the United Kingdom and the Six.
This is a Report which has already been presented and, I believe, accepted unanimously. In trying to arrive at a positive conclusion, we should apply our minds to constructive suggestions like that. I hope that the Government is following up the suggestion of M. Conte, who was the Rapporteur.
As Britain has a lot to offer in an agreement—and 50 per cent. of world trade is done in sterling, I believe—I often wonder whether perhaps some of the opposition may not come from financial circles. Perhaps I am too suspicious, but, nevertheless, the Common Market currency is quite different from that of the sterling area. I think that any Government, even if we on this side were in office, would have to consider the fact that a large proportion of Britain's trade is done in sterling and there has to be a positive arrangement with the Six on currency matters, to say nothing about tariffs, before we can, as it were, throw in our lot with them. But the mere fact of stating that, I hope, shows that Britain has something to offer as well as making a plea.
It is quite obvious that the Government will not be in a difficult situation because of their Motion tonight. It is quite innocuous. If I were of a suspicious turn of mind I might wonder whether there have been collusion between the two Front Benches. However, I shall not pursue that thought any further. The fact remains, perhaps as a matter of coincidence, that there will not be a challenge to the Government in the Division Lobby tonight.
All I suggest to them is that they should get away from the indefinite position in which our own country seems to be at the moment. I understand very well the remark of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Foreign Secretary that we cannot, as it were, throw our cards on the table and then say to the other side, "Let us see your cards." Business is not done in that way—and it is very big business in which the nations are engaged at the moment. Obviously, there will have to be negotiations.
I urge the Government, the President of the Board of Trade particularly, to show to the House quite clearly tonight that they are genuinely pursuing the negotiations, and not sticking their heels in and saying, "This is where we stand and we shall not make a move," but giving as well as taking. If these negotiations are to come to a successful end, we in Britain shall have to give something as well as take.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) suggested that we ought to have a new approach to this problem. I entirely agree with him, though I do not think the approach that I shall suggest is one with which he will agree.
What I complain of in all the negotiations which have taken place since the Common Market was brought into operation is the fact that we have stuck rigidly to one article in particular of G.A.T.T. which prevents us from tackling this problem flexibly. We were always told that we must follow G.A.T.T. I would ask why. Why is G.A.T.T. regarded as so sacrosanct? It was instituted thirteen years ago in entirely different conditions from those which apply today, when Europe had hardly begun to recover from the war. Nov, it is prosperous and the situation has completely changed.
I would suggest it is high time that Article I of G.A.T.T., the non-discrimination clause, was adapted to the entirely new conditions, because if it were, and we allowed tariff discrimination, which is about the only form of discrimination which is not taking place in the world, as I shall show in a moment, we should at once make the situation far more flexible and make it possible to bridge the gap between the Six and the Seven and the Commonwealth, which, I think, everyone is trying to do.
It is not as though G.A.T.T. had not beer violated itself. The overseas territories clause of the Treaty of Rome is, I think, a violation of G.A.T.T. to begin with. So is the Free Trade Area, because it excludes agriculture. As far as I am aware, international trade tariffs must be wholly removed, and that is not the case in the free trade area.
Then there is the Central American free trade agreement between Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Salvador and Honduras, in which a long list of raw materials and manufactured goods are excepted from tariffs and other barriers, so that is not a free trade but a preferential area. It has been set up despite the fact that Nicaragua is a member of G.A.T.T., and yet no one seems to be very worried about it.
The second Afro-Asian economic conference which met in Cairo a few months ago put forward plans for expanding Afro-Asian trade. One of the provisos it made in the resolutions it passed was that the Secretary-General, who has been instructed to do an enormous amount of study which I think will take him ten year to do, was asked in particular to study the possibilities of implementing in Afro-Asian countries agreements for preferential trade. There were about 26 of them in the free world which attended this conference, apart from a number behind the Iron Curtain, and if 26 of those countries are thinking along those lines, surely there is a chance of getting something done to depart from this very rigid attitude. Among those 26 countries were India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Nigeria and Cyprus, all of whom shortly will be independent members of the Commonwealth.
There is any amount of discrimination taking place in the world in other matters than tariffs. Almost every time the U.S. tries to dispose of some of its surplus agricultural farm produce it uses the methods of discrimination—not tariff discrimination but discrimination in some other form. For instance, a few years ago it agreed to supply Brazil with 138 million dollars worth of wheat and other farm produce over a three-year period taking payment in Brazilian currency, but most of the proceeds were to be relent to Brazil for economic development and the remainder was reserved for use in Brazil by U.S. Government agencies.
In other words, that was discrimination in favour of U.S. trade with Brazil by the U.S. in that agreement. Then a year later the U.S. made another agreement with Mexico by which 25 per cent. of the proceeds of payments for surplus produce was for loans to U.S. and Mexican business firms and a great deal of the rest was lent to the Mexican


Government for economic development. During the fiscal year, 1957, no fewer than 40 agreements were made with 25 other countries for the sale of surplus American produce totalling altogether 1 billion dollars worth. This is discrimination with a vengeance.
Recently there has been flag discrimination made by the U.S. in her agreement with India. Recently there was an agreement between the U.S. and India for the shipment of 17 million tons of grains over the next four years. That agreement is governed by the U.S. Public Law 480 which requires that 50 per cent. of the goods should be moved in American ships. That is the equivalent of a ship a day for four years, half of them being American. During May of this year freight rates paid to U.S. ships engaged in this trade were 196s. a ton, compared with 70s. a ton paid to non-American ships. That is also discrimination with a vengeance. Indeed, American interests own nearly half the flags of convenience fleets which discriminate against British and other shipping.
Then every bilateral trade agreement negotiated with individual countries is really discrimination, because it says that country A will take certain goods from country B, and, therefore, country A is discriminating in favour of country B against all the other countries buying the same kind of goods. In the first six months of 1959 about one hundred reciprocal agreements were made requiring this between countries one or both of which were members of G.A.T.T.
That shows surely that there is a tremendous amount of discrimination going on in the world, not necessarily tariff discrimination, but discrimination in other forms, in spirit in violation of Article I of G.A.T.T., and my complaint is that we are sticking rigidly—not only ourselves—to this article of G.A.T.T. when if we were only to loosen it a bit we could find a means of solving the problem between Europe and the Commonwealth.
I maintain that non-discrimination is a complete mockery of words. It has led to deliberate discrimination in different ways, not necessarily by tariffs, but by other means. G.A.T.T. is no more effective in enforcing non-discrimination

than, for example, the Volstead Act was before the war in enforcing prohibition in the United States, with the difference, perhaps, that whereas the United States Government did not engage in any illicit liquor deals, it is one of the leading bootleggers concerning discrimination.
I beg the Government to look at this problem again and see whether it would not be worth tackling the question of Article I of G.A.T.T. with the other members of the Six or the Seven and, of course, the Commonwealth. Together, the European countries alone are nearly half the members of G.A.T.T. If we add the Commonwealth, that makes a still greater number. As I have said, the Afro-Asian bloc is looking in that direction. If only a lead were given, rather more favourable views might be taken towards revision of G.A.T.T. than have been taken in the past.
I believe that if we could loosen this inflexible and rigorous Article of G.A.T.T., there is a means of finding a bridge between the Commonwealth and Europe, whether in the form of secondary preferences or any other means which allow of some kind of discrimination. I support entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) said concerning the vital part that some Colonial Territories play in our Commonwealth trade and how badly hit they would be if we were to abandon the Commonwealth preference system.
Consider, for example, sugar, which my hon. Friend mentioned. There is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the Commonwealth preference system working in with it. What will happen if we abandon that, as we might well be forced to do, to give priority to European beet sugar if we were to go into the Common Market? The West Indian citrus trade is facing a great deal of worry with the further relaxation of import controls on citrus from the United States. What would happen to that trade? Can we abandon the West Indies and ruin all the citrus producers there? There is the oilseed industry of West Africa, in which Nigeria plays a great part and which is subject to Commonwealth preference in this country. Can we afford to abandon that and place a duty, possibly, on oilseeds coming from Nigeria and have to allow


oilseeds from French West Africa to come in free if we go into the Common Market? It is impossible and unthinkable to place a duty on Commonwealth goods and to allow those from Europe to come in free.
The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said that we have to make the choice between going in and staying out. I submit that there is the middle way of getting rid of this rigid restriction of G.A.T.T. and tackling it on the basis of dovetailing our Commonwealth preferential system with the Free Trade Area and the Common Market. That is the way I want to see followed and that would be the way more than anything else of strengthening the free world against whatever it may have to meet from behind the Iron Curtain.
Look at the Commonwealth today. Look at the vast areas of Canada and Australia, which are undeveloped and which need only men and money to expand their production. Look at the millions of people in India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and Malaya for that matter, in Asia, and countries like Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and Tanganyika, in Africa, whose standard of living needs raising and who would provide enormous markets if only we would do that.
It is said that there is an expanding market in Europe. There may be. It is vainly a replacement market rather than an expanding market. Look at the enormous potential of the Commonwealth, however, if only we can develop it in that way. I want to see greater unity between Europe and the Commonwealth, it we can do it without weakening the present association with Europe in any way, because I believe that that is the best way of strengthening the West against any menace from behind the Iron Curtain.
Therefore, I appeal to the Government to consider this plan again and to see whether we cannot relax the rigid restrictions imposed by G.A.T.T. and find a flexible system of dovetailing our Commonwealth preference system with the Common Market and the Free Trade Area. It is because we seem to have reached an impasse in our present negotiations that I say that I want to see greater unity between the Commonwealth and Europe, because I believe that Europe needs the Commonwealth

and the Commonwealth needs Europe. I believe that we can do it on this basis and I ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade seriously to consider it.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: ; Having debated these matters together in Strasbourg, the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) will not be surprised to know that I share his views about G.A.T.T. and the need to revise it. No doubt, the hon. Member was as disappointed as I was on reading The Times on Saturday morning to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer; if he was correctly reported, had been talking about the sanctity of G.A.T.T. in the recent O.E.C.D. negotiations. No doubt, the President of the Board of Trade will be enlightening us about that in due course.
I also agree very much with the hon. Member for Wembley, South about the need to associate the Commonwealth with Europe. While, if we went in without any provisions about the Commonwealth, that would be difficult, the hon. Member will agree equally that if we were to make no arrangements with the Common Market, many Commonwealth countries would be in a difficult position because of the preferences granted to the French overseas territories.
In this debate, for which we have waited a long time, it is rather a surprise that many hon. Members seem to be approaching the question as though it were a new issue. Speaking without any political bias, it is a sad commentary and it is a reflection on parties on both sides of the House that four years have passed before we make an effort to confront public opinion in Britain with the real issues. It is an extremely difficult problem. It is not easy to say that we should came down hard this way or that. Like every other difficult political and economic problem, it is a question of taking a balance of a number of considerations.
I do not propose to go into the many technical difficulties which arise whatever form we think that association with Europe should take. Probably the President of the Board of Trade has heard me say on other occasions that I do not think there are any technical problems that could not be overcome if the political will exists to do so. If the many


experts engaged had all been locked together like a jury in a room and told that they would not come out again until they found a solution, I am fairly certain that, despite the difficulties with which the President of the Board of Trade struggled over so many months during the Free Trade Area negotiations, a solution would have been forthcoming.
I see this as being much more of a political than an economic problem. Many of us—perhaps all of us, in various ways—have underestimated the nature of the political problem as it is seen by our friends in Europe. There is something about the European idea which, one can only say, is rather similar to our devotion to the idea of the Commonwealth. It is difficult to get someone in Europe to understand why the Common wealth means what it does to us. In the same way, Europeans find difficulty in persuading us as to the mystique, the very difficult to explain idea, that they attach to European unity.
If the President of the Board of Trade will forgive my saying so, I am not at all sure whether he or his advisers appreciated 'the force of this political idea when the free trade negotiations were going on. It is because of the force of European unity and the European idea, as it is called, that any attempts that we have made in the past and any that we might make in the future to divide the Six are bound to fail. It is rather like a family argument. Members of a family may argue among themselves, but once an outsider comes in they stand firmly together. If we want to influent them we shall probably have to become a member of the family.
I want to give some reasons why I think that it is an overwhelming British interest that we should become closely associated with the Common Market. The first and most compelling reason is the dynamic expansion one finds today in Europe, and indeed, not only today. Taking the 1950s as a whole, one finds that industrial production has expanded in the Six at twice the rate in the United Kingdom. All the evidence is that it will continue to expand at at least twice the United Kingdom rate and possibly more.
It is true that only 14 per cent. of our trade is with the Common Market countries, and perhaps there is a tendency

to exaggerate the economic consequences of our exclusion, but, of course, that 14 per cent., even if we were unable to increase it, would itself grow in terms of the expansion of the economy. I am worried less about whether we might not be able to do so much trade with the Six as about the enormous increase in the competitive character of their exports in third markets as compared with our own. If the Six rationalise their industry and modernise it by further investment, then, having a home market bigger than that of the United States on which to base their economy, they will make life more and more difficult for exporters in third markets, including Commonwealth markets.
There is finally the question of investment, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) referred and made a point which otherwise I would have sought to make. We are losing investments because of the existence of the Six and our exclusion from them. It is interesting to note that British firms are already making plans and, in some cases, have set up plants in Europe to enter the European market in that way. While that, to some extent, safeguards the interests of the shareholders, it is a bad thing from the point of view of the workers who otherwise would be engaged in making those goods here.
It is perhaps an unusual commentary on the way of the world that the so-called laissez-faire Governments of the Six are being forced by the Economic Commission to undertake much more planning than they otherwise would have done. I say this because I do not think that there are any economic reasons to prevent our joining the Six. On the economic plane, the Free Trade Area was an attempt to obtain for us the economic benefits which joining would have brought about. It is a gross exaggeration to suggest that on the economic plane joining the Six would mean the economic subjection of this country to some supra-national authority. Article VI speaks only of co-ordinating economic policies. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome to suggest that our internal economy would be subject to pressure.

Mr. Peter Kirk: Would not the hon. Member agree that joining


the Coal and Steel Community, which the Government have agreed to re-examine, would involve a greater loss of sovereignty than joining the Common Market?

Mr. Mulley: I agree. It would have much more far-reaching effect in that respect than joining the Common Market.

Sir John Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us absolutely clearly whether he means signing a treaty along the lines of the present Treaty of Rome or whether he means what we all mean—a closer joining together with the community of Europe?

Mr. Mulley: I am glad to have that intervention, because it may possibly permit me to spell out what I personally have in mind at greater length than otherwise I would have dared to do.
It will be extremely serious if we do not come to some economic arrangement with the Common Market, and we all agree with the Motion which the Government have put before us today. The only question is whether we can achieve its objects. My point of view is quite simple. I look to the Government to co exactly what they have now put on the Paper. If one, two or three years from now the economy of the country is affected and my constituents are in difficulties because of the Government's failure to come to terms with this problem, I shall hold Her Majesty's Govern-men completely and absolutely responsible.
The problems, however, are not essentially economic. First, there is the political problem. Secondly, there is the problem of agriculture, and thirdly, the problem of the Commonwealth. We must understand that these problems will become more and more difficult to solve the longer we wait. It is always more difficult and more expensive to buy shares in a going and expanding concern than it is to buy them when the original prospectus is issued.
Ten years ago we had on offer the leadership of Europe. There is no point in going in great detail into the sorry story of how we let it slip from our hands. There was, first of all, the invitation to join the Coal and Steel Community,

which—I think now wrongly—the Labour Government of that time declined. Then, and this was crucial, there was the European Defence Community. We could have belonged to it and could have saved the Community for a cheaper price than we paid afterwards by committing four divisions and an Air Force to supra-national control and placing such a large proportion of our forces under an institution which requires the consent of other Governments before, we can withdraw them. I accept that as being right, but why was it not done a little earlier?
The greatest mistake of all, of course, was that we did not participate in the negotiations that preceded the Treaty of Rome. At least I have a clear record on that, because I said this in this House before the Treaty was signed. This is not a far-reaching Treaty spelling out federation. It is more like a register of bargains and special circumstances between countries, and had we participated we could have had our special circumstances as well. If the House does not take this from me. I am sure, that it will certainly take it from President de Gaulle. President de Gaulle is far more nationalist than any hon. Member here, and if President de Gaulle can accept the Treaty of Rome, surely there is nothing in it that should be impossible from our point of view. There is a linguistic difficulty here, because "federation" on the Continent means a looser idea than the word means in the strict term of British political science.
It may well be that without Suez and the change of Government in France the Free Trade Area would have succeeded. Now we are left with E.F.T.A., which I think and said was a mistake, but having committed ourselves to it we have to stand by it. In all these negotiations one of our difficulties is that we have not learned the Continental approach whereby one makes a great declaration of faith in a preamble and then in the appendix one makes all kinds of special reservations and exemptions. It is true that the present Prime Minister and Minister of Education and other right hon. Gentlemen opposite learned this fast in Strasbourg between 1949 and 1950, but somehow or other when they took office they ceased to declare their belief in European unity. The political


problem is that, whether we like it or not, we are bound for reasons of defence and foreign policy to work with members of the Six in N.A.T.O.
The Prime Minister himself laid down the principle and coined the term "interdependence" when he said that no country today, however strong, could have an independent policy. All we sacrifice in the foreign field by association with, or belonging to the Six is possibly the right of the British Prime Minister to pick up the telephone and ring up the President of the United States, as he did over Suez, and be told, "No". That is probably the only field of independent action that would be lost if we adhered to the Treaty of Rome.
We have to get out of our heads the idea that we are still a big Power the size of the Soviet Union or of the United States. I repeat that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome, which is unacceptable to us politically. We have to consider, too, the growing importance in the whole of this argument of the European Commission. As it proceeds in its plans for the development of the Community, it will be more and more difficult for us actually to join it. If we want to help fashion the nature of the Community, we can do so only by being a member of it.
If we were a member of it, we would have our say along with others, not only on the speed but on the direction in which it would move. We have one characteristic in common with the Six, and that is complacency. The stiking thing about the Six, the members of the Commission and all the people concerned is their complacency and their great confidence in the future. I think that complacency—less well placed in our case—is a characteristic of this country at the moment. It was epitomised by the Government's slogan, "You have never had it so good", at the last election. I suggest that this kind of approach, this philosophy of, "I am all right Jack" was not the inspiration behind the Battle of Britain or the merchant venturers about whom the Prime Minister spoke in his speech about exports recently.
We cannot afford to be complacent. The Community can be indifferent as to whether we join it or not, and prominent statesmen like M. Wigny, the Belgian

Foreign Minister, and Professor Hallstein and others have said that the kind of arrangements they want—and this was the pattern of O.E.C.D. until recently—was that the association of other countries would have to be within the rules of G.A.T.T., and we should have no greater preference than that accorded to any South American republic that happens to belong to G.A.T.T. The Six can afford to take this view. There is no reason why they should consider giving an invitation or putting themselves out to accommodate us. We need to throw a brick through the window of the glasshouse of the Economic Community. The only member country of the Seven who can do it is ourselves. If the present Government ever throw a brick it will be a very small one tied to the end of a piece of string and will be yanked back with the Government saying that they did not mean it. What has done more harm to the cause of Europe than anything else has been our shilly-shallying and our dipping our toes in the pool and then pulling them out pretty sharply. This has actually discouraged many of our friends in Europe.
We have clearly to negotiate with Europe. We have to do so from a position which gets weaker every day. Laying down in advance the plans and terms on which we do business is not negotiation. We might have done that before the Treaty of Rome, but we cannot do that today.
In agriculture, happily, there is now a general consensus of opinion that there is no serious problem. We all understand, what was plain four years ago, that no one in Europe wanted free trade in agriculture and, therefore, no great problem was involved.
The Commonwealth is a more difficult problem. I do not think we can be associated with the Common Market unless we make provision for the Commonwealth to be associated, too. That is why I make a reservation about our unilaterally joining the Common Market as it is. Surely we can ask for our overseas communities and dependencies the same terms as are accorded to the existing members of the Six for their dependent communities and overseas territories as well. But we should also understand that, while the Commonwealth may as a political association


remain firm in the future, there is no guarantee that they will continue to do trade with us.
In East Africa, today, one rarely sees a British car because German cars are cheaper and more suitable for purposes there. That does not necessarily mean that East Africa is opting out of the Commonwealth, because it is doing trade elsewhere. That is the pattern which will continue more and more as the Six, because of their size and greater technique, offer a better price and a better delivery date. The other difficulty is that of E.F.T.A.
I will try to satisfy the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) as to what I would prefer. In the first place, we must certainly recognise the Six as an entity and show—unhappily, it is necessary for us to show this—that whatever we do is not designed to disrupt or slow down the progress of the Common Market. Secondly, we have to try to provide not only for ourselves but for the other six members of E.F.T.A. as well. Thirdly, we have to try to get the best terms that we can. The point was made clearly by the hon. Member for Wembley, South that we cannot do this within the rules of G.A.T.T. I do not think that any solution is possible within the rules of G.A.T.T., although clearly it should be within the spirit of G.A.T.T. The spirit of G.A.T.T. means that it would lead to freer trade not to trade diversion.
Clearly, under the existing rules of G.A.T.T., only a free trade area, or a customs union is possible as a special arrangement. I do not think we can find a solution if we stick rigidly to this approach. If the choice is between G.A.T.T. or Europe, I would always choose Europe, and I hope that the Government will, too, when they come to a decision. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will tell us something more about the discussions when the Swiss had to bully the Six into recognising the need for a provision still to seek a European solution in the new O.E.C.D. I have read only short reports in the newspapers, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will give us a full account of this very important development of O.E.C.D.
Those are the conditions. The way in which I would seek to do it is this. The Common Market countries, and particu-

larly the French, have always referred to themselves as a club. I think that we should accept that and agree to join the club. In other words, we should agree to accept the preamble to the Treaty of Rome and the political and economic integration there envisaged. It is not spelled out at all, incidentally, in the preamble. In most clubs it is possible to have both full and associate members. If we accept that initially we can become only associate members, then the Six may well be prepared to accept our admission, the understanding clearly being that an associated member pays a lower subscription but gets a lower benefit.
In the eyes of the French and other members of the Six, what we have tried to do by our Free Trade Area arrangements is to get full benefit on a cheap subscription. That we can never do. We have to agree in principle to what is being done in the Community and we have to pay some subscription by way of political and economic co-ordination. We should have to agree to join as free members after a limited period of time, say five years, and, since we are members of E.F.T.A., we clearly have to get our colleagues in E.F.T.A. to agree to that arrangement.
We have to make a joint arrangement and I think that it is not impossible to get some arrangement whereby the Community's external tariff can be reduced by half against the associate members, while we in our turn give half rates on our external tariffs against members of the Community, with the understanding that those countries not disabled by neutrality and treaty obligations should become associate members for a probationary period of five years, and then become full members. In that period we must clearly make arrangements to fit in the Commonwealth members.
There is no reason why the Six should take any new initiative. There is no reason why they should not proceed as they are now doing, and rightly doing, with their own affairs, fast building up the economic and political strength of their community. Any initiative has to come from outside the Six. I hope that we are to have much more than the vague words of the Motion and that the Government will say tonight that they are prepared to take an initiative in this matter or, if they feel for some reason


that they cannot do that, then at least that they will tell Europe that they will not take an initiative for one, two, or three years, or however long it is.
What is very harmful to us and to our friends in Europe is being one day in and the next day out. I hope that we will get an initiative from the Government tonight, recognising the full force of European political unity, understanding that only by accepting the principles of the Common Market can we hope to get a solution.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: There is an unreality about the Motion before the House which recognises the need for political and economic unity in Europe, because, quite clearly, our plans in that direction cannot be realised within the next decade, especially in view of the problems of the reunification of Germany and the disappearance of the Iron Curtain.
In that context, at times the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) was making things appear to be so easy and then, in his own honesty, admitting the difficulties when he came to explain matters. He was asked how he would see about joining the Common Market and at one time he said that he would throw a brick at the glass house, but I felt that that was not his solution. His solution was to enter the Community provided that he could get all he wanted in the way of the Commonwealth relationship.
The hon. Gentleman did not take much interest in agriculture and said that, apart from that, there would be no difficulty. The key phrase in his valuable and interesting speech was when he said that one must become a member of a family if one wanted to influence it. If that were one's model in life, one would become a polygamist. His difficulty, and in some ways it is ours, is that we already belong to a preferential system, the Commonwealth. No hon. Member on either side of the House, not even, I believe, in the Liberal Party, wants to abandon the free entry for Commonwealth products, or abandon our Commonwealth partnership. Even now, with its share of world trade declining, our trade with the Commonwealth represents 41 per cent. of our export trade compared with 14 per cent.

represented by our trade with the Common Market.
I beg the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park not so lightly to throw away agriculture. Both parties are pledged to a system of support for agriculture.

Mr. Mulley: I dismissed it so shortly because I did not want to trespass unduly on the time of the House. If I had endeavoured to set out all the problems, and to give a complete answer to each, I would still have been speaking at 8 o'clock, and that would not have been popular. I would not throw away agriculture. I merely said that many of the doubts which were raised four years ago had now been dispelled.

Mr. Turton: I appreciate that hon. Members cannot make full speeches and that if they attempted to do so only two or three could be called during the whole evening. However, agriculture is important and we cannot allow this country to abandon a system of price support in exchange for the Common Market agricultural policy which is to be under a European agriculture commission.
In other words, we must ensure that this country has its own control of prices and its own influence on wages in agriculture. I do not want my constituents to be tied to a system of Continental agriculture in which wages are often half the level of those in this country, and with agriculture entirely different from the type which we know.
If we joined the Common Market and its agricultural arrangements, the price of bread would go up from 11d. to probably 1s. 1½d. while the price of food generally in the cost-of-living index would rise by 7½ per cent. I do not think that those who advocate our joining the Common Market have worked out what the effect on agriculture would be, let alone the effect on the cost of living.
Although he did not say so in his speech, when he interrupted his right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park said that all the fears about the movement of labour were nonsense. He said that we would not have a problem with the miners, for instance, and that there is nothing like that in the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Mulley: That was not me, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd).

Mr. Turton: I am sorry it was from another part of Sheffield.
Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome says:
The free movement of workers shall be ensured within the Community not later than at the date of the expiry of the transitional period.
This shall involve the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other working conditions.

Mr. Kirk: Will my right hon. Friend go on to read Section 3 of that Article, which says:
It shall include the right, subject to limitations…
a. to accept offers of employment actually made;"?

Mr. Turton: Like the hon. Member foe Sheffield, Park, I do not want to be too long. The point is that Article 48 allows the free movement of workers.

Mr. Winterbottom: On conditions.

Mr. Kirk: The jobs must be available.

Mr. Turton: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) will be able to speak later, but Article 48 clearly allows the free movement of workers. That is why joining the Common Market would be the biggest blow imaginable for organised labour in this country.
What we are all agreed upon is the fact that Western European unity is politically desirable and ought to be recognised as such.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw recanted on the very good advice which Mr. Ernest Bevin once gave the House, that one should put one's cards face upwards on the table. That is where I believe we have made a mistake during the last three years. I think that we should have gone to the countries forming the European Economic Community and put our cards, and those of our Commonwealth partners, face upwards on the table.
I do not believe that it is too late now. We are one of the most important markets for the Common Market countries, the Six. Equally, some of our

Commonwealth partners have an important stake in the Common Market countries. Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria send one-third of their exports to the Common Market countries. Tanganyika, Uganda and Pakistan send more than a quarter of their exports to the Common Market countries. It is, therefore, in our joint interest in the Commonwealth that we should negotiate as a Commonwealth.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and even the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park counselled waiting, without action. I believe that the time has come to try to get round the table representatives of Europe with representatives of the Commonwealth and to work out a system of some accommodation between the two preferential areas, the Commonwealth and the Common Market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) explained some of the difficulties of that in relation to G.A.T.T. He also explained very vividly how nearly everybody except ourselves was infringing the provisions of G.A.T.T. G.A.T.T. is not meant to be chain armour to restrain. It consists of a sensible body of people. It consists of ourselves, the Commonwealth, and Europe. There is nothing hostile about it. Surely, it is before G.A.T.T. that one should argue this system. If, under G.A.T.T., one is allowed to form a new preferential area, or a Common Market, equally one should be allowed to revise the existing preference systems within the Commonwealth, and equally one ought to be able to work out a system of what my hon. Friend called "dovetailing" preferences between the two preferential systems.
This is nothing new. In 1949, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
Within this area, the Empire and Western Europe, by the preferential system and not by the clumsy and restrictive devices of quantitative import restrictions and quantitative bilateral contracts, a flexible system can step by step lead to a restoration of convertible currencies…
and other desirable things. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was there surely sowing the seeds for the future economic settlement of Europe, but somehow we have never gone on and worked towards making a success of that system.
There is no reason why this Common Market preferential area could not be married to our Commonwealth preferential area. That would not be polygamy. It would be a working arrangement between two families coming together for their mutual benefit. Indeed, it would be for the mutual benefit of the whole world. It is vital that Ghana coffee, or Pakistan jute, should go in increasing quantities to Western Europe.
I see nothing but good coming out of an expanding Western Europe, and an expanding European Economic Community, but we must see that our partners in the Commonwealth get that advantage. I fear that if we do nothing, and allow the Commonwealth countries, one by one, to try to see what terms they can get, they will get far worse terms than they will get if we negotiate together, because we can at least give them a bargaining advantage. We can argue as one of the great import markets for Volkswagen cans, or French wines, or whatever it is. We can offer to take more of the commodities of Western Europe in exchange for Europe taking more of our Commonwealth primary products, in Asia and Africa.
The danger that I see in the last three years, and in the attitude adopted by some of my hon. Friends and same hon. Gentlemen opposite today, is that in our preoccupation with Europe we will find Asia and Africa drifting away from Europe. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House are devoted to solving that important problem. The need today is to increase the standard of living in the underdeveloped areas of the world. The underdeveloped areas of the Commonwealth are our responsibility, but their development is in the interests also of the countries of Western Europe.
There, as I see is the strength of Britain's position. Britain is the bridge between the Commonwealth in Asia, and Africa, and the European Community. Let us not forget that on that bridge she has great responsibilities of leadership, Which I beg Her Majesty's Government to discharge.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: agree with one of the last points made

by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) but with very few others. I agree with him entirely that the complications arising from agreements in G.A.T.T. should not be insurmountable. G.A.T.T. is an agreement which we have made freely with other countries, all of whom could find that certain modifications would be to the common advantage. That being so, there seems to be no reason why they should not be prepared to modify their own agreement. If agreements or situations have to be modified to meet the problems which we are discussing today, G.A.T.T. is one of the things that could be most easily modified, and with the least possible disagreement.
It appears to me that the general trend of the debate is irrelevant to the subject we are discussing. Much of the discussion has been about the necessity for increasing our trade with Europe and other parts of the world and of arranging a reduction in tariffs, not only in Western Europe but in Eastern Europe, and in Asia, America, and so on. That is all very fine and interesting, but it is a matter of our general trade relations with the other countries of the world.
What I understood we were discussing today was our attitude, as a country, and as a Government, towards the new Community of the Six, and whether it was possible for us either to join that Community or to become more closely associated with it for the purposes for which that Community exists.
The purposes for which that Community exists are not just the purposes of reducing tariffs and increasing trade between themselves. The Foreign Secretary started very hopefully when he drew attention to the fact that the Government were becoming more and more convinced not only that Britain could not fulfil her rôle—which he did not define—but that Europe would not be complete without us.
Then he went on to underline the dangers of a political division arising from this economic division. That seems to me the key to the issue which we should be discussing. Of course, we all like to think that Europe cannot be complete without us. The trouble is that Europe is beginning to think more and more that it can probably get along without us. Europe would much prefer to


have us, but the very change of emphasis on the part of the Government and of the Or position Front Bench over the last two or three years shows pretty clearly that it is not that Europe cannot get along without us, but that we are gradually coming to learn that we cannot get along without Europe. That is what all the excitement is about and why the Government have put down the Motion today and drafted it in terms which could suggest that we were rethinking our position with a view to entering this European Community in some form. One of the reasons why the Opposition have not put down an Amendment advocating something more positive is that the Opposition is no more positive on the matter than the Government.
When the Foreign Secretary talked about the danger of political division he said that he did not want to develop the argument because so much had been said about it. But it is a pity that he did not develop it a little further, because this is the factor in the situation with which I am concerned more than any. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say later that there was not too much time at our disposal if we wished to avoid a division in Europe. But we have been nearly twelve years discussing this matter, and it is rather frightening that after twelve years—with all the evidence which has piled up during that time and the admission that many of the old arguments used against joining in the original discussions on the Coal and Steel Community, the Messina Conference and the rest, can be seen in a much different light and that many of them are being rejected as irrelevant to the present situation—the Foreign Secretary can stand at the Dispatch Box and say only that there is little time at our disposal if we are to avoid a political division of Europe. He is right, and that is why he showed such concern about the situation which is developing.
The fact is that Europe is divided between the Communities of the Six and the Seven because of the policy, or lack of policy, of Her Majesty's Government. Probably some hon. Members opposite will say, "And of their predecessors". I am prepared to concede that, up to a point. But I would remind those who would say so that many of the situations which existed in 1946 no longer exist and one can balance or weight the

responsibility as one wishes. The fact remains that within the last nine years we have had the present Government in office; the time is now short; the Government still have no positive policy and it is precisely their policy, or lack of it, which has led to the present dangerous division.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I think that the hon. Member was a member of the Government at the time when the whole question of joining the Schuman Plan came up. He will remember that the Labour Government—I thought rightly, although some of my hon. Friends did not—considered that the supra-national characteristics of the Schuman Plan made it absolutely imperative that we should not come in. Has the hon. Gentleman changed his mind?

Mr. J. Hynd: No, certainly not. I was trying to avoid going over old history by saying that one could weight the argument of respective responsibility of Governments by the change of situation which we have and the rejection of certain arguments that were used at that time.
I have certainly not changed my mind, but since the hon. Member raises the point, I was not in the Government at the time of the Schuman Plan conference but well remember what happened. After the experience of the war, and with the direct encouragement. indeed the lead, of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), the present Prime Minister and the present Minister of Aviation were campaigning on the Continent to encourage those countries to make this move for the purpose of bringing an end to the strife which had divided Europe in several world wars.
They were anxious to take this opportunity while public opinion was ripe. Public opinion is always ripe for these great forward moves after such a calamity as we experienced between 1914 and 1918 and again between 1939 and 1945. Out of one came the League of Nations and the I.L.O.—tremendous and courageous gestures which could never have been made ten years later. After 1939 we had the United Nations and. following that, we had the developments which led to the Schuman Plan conference.
The reason why the Labour Government at that time felt unable to take part


in the conference—if the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) refers to the columns of HANSARD he will find that we were favourable to being a party to the conference and to taking part in the new experiment of the Coal and Steel Community—was the snag caused by the insistence of M. Monnet that before going to the conference we should indicate our acceptance of a supra-national authority. Our question was—a supra-national authority over what? Until we had the conference and decided what it was we were creating, there was a certain amount of reason for the British Government saying that it was a little premature to agree a form of political authority over something which did not exist and about which we did not know anything. But Europe, anxious to get on with the job, insisted on that provision and therefore, the then Labour Government were unable to take part in the original conference. They were in support of the idea and they were prepared to join, but, as I think Lord Morrison, then Mr. Herbert Morrison, said at the time, if we took part in the conference, the question of a political authority over whatever emerged there-from would become a practical proposition.
Since the point has been raised, it offers me the opportunity of developing a little further this question of a supra-national political authority and the change in the situation since that time; because since that time, not only has the Schuman Plan conference been completed and the new form of organisation over which it was desired to set a political authority become clear, but in fact it has been operating successfully for a series of years. In addition, we have a new community, the Euratom Community, functioning and the Common Market in operation. So the problem with which the Labour Party of 1949–50 was faced no longer exists. We can see what it is that exists, we can see the structure, and all that is necessary is to recognise the kind of political authority needed to operate that structure effectively.
When Members on both sides of the House suggest that Great Britain could become part of this European community except for one snag, that of the political authority, I become rather frightened, because ours is supposed to

be one of the oldest democracies in the world. We are supposed to be the people who, above all, insist on popular political control of all the great movements and great responsibilities of authority. Yet in regard to this one which is being created and which we all say—or most of us—that we support in principle and would like to put into operation, we say, "But not if there is a political authority," whereas we, of all people, should be the first to say that we are prepared to join some of these great new organisations on condition that there is popular political control.
It was said the other day in my hearing that to talk in this sense is like saying that we should join the United States of America, if we wish to break down national barriers and all the rest of it. That may be so, but if this country, for any reason decided that we should like to become an additional State of the U.S.A., there is one condition which we would not lay down—that of refusing to take part in the Government. Indeed, we would surely insist that if we were joining the United States we would want to take part in the political authority. In the case of Europe, for some strange reason we say, "All right; but no political interference". That is a very curious argument for a country like ours.
I come to the question of the Commonwealth. There is no doubt that the Commonwealth has been one of the problems for this country. The great pity is that we did not go to Messina, as France did, and at Messina write into the Common Market Treaty provisions which would meet our problems of overseas territories and of agriculture in the same way as the French did. Now it is too late. That could have been done at the time, but it was not done. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, when dealing with the question of the Commonwealth, said that we must not forget the value of the strength and cohesion of the Commonwealth, the great importance of the link between this country and Commonwealth territories.
Here, again, is the fallacy of taking this argument in little bits and trying to examine each one separately. The same applies to the argument about agriculture. Those of us who believe we ought to be in this great dynamic


European Community believe it because we believe also that, unless we are in, the Commonwealth will be one of the heavy losers. This country, isolated from Europe and probably antagonised among the European nations, will be much less significant to our Commonwealth partners than we are today. I would particularly remind hon. Members concerned about newly-emerging Commonwealth countries like Ghana and Nigeria, of another factor, namely, that Britain outside the European Community could well lead to a situation in which we would antagonise the new Commonwealth countries like Nigeria and Ghana, or alternatively drive them in antagonism with some of the emerging ex-French colonies.

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Member make clear whether he would be willing or not willing to maintain Commonwealth free entry to get the advantages he envisages?

Mr. Hynd: The free entry of Commonwealth goods to this country?

Mr. Turton: Yes.

Mr. Hynd: I think that in the last resort I would be prepared to consider that, but I do not think it at all necessary, because there is no reason why we should not offer to the Commonwealth to give up the advantages we have in their markets—which are not very great anyhow and which are being reduced year by year—while giving them continued entry to our markets on the same basis as at present and getting the European countries to agree to give Commonwealth products the same free entry into their markets. I think that they would be prepared to consider that because they themselves would have the tremendous advantage of further trade with the Commonwealth.
Whether it were done in that way or some other. I do not think there would be any insuperable obstacle in this connection, but, in relation to Nigeria and Ghana and territories like that, what is happening in the Six now is that, particularly with the assistance of German money, vast sums are being invested in the ex-French territories which are emerging to independence. I would remind the House that each of those ex-French colonies as it received its independence applied for associate member

ship of the Common Market. They are now free members or associate members and are supported to the extent of hundreds of millions of pounds for developing industries which will compete with the more highly-developed territories of Ghana and Nigeria.
Having developed these competitive goods and having free entry into this the greatest dynamic market of the world, they will then have tremendous advantage over Nigeria and Ghana in the marketing of bananas, palm oil, coffee, cocoa and the rest. The probability is that the trade of these emerging Commonwealth countries in Africa will go down very seriously and that could lead to a most unhealthy situation as between our African territories and the French ex-colonial territories. I am concerned about this position because I am quite confident that if we were members of, or in some form so closely associated with the economic Community as to make no difference, this kind of problem for the Commonwealth and for Africa could well be avoided.
I turn to the question of agriculture. One cannot develop all these arguments, but a great point was made by an hon. Member opposite about the difference in the two systems—the controlled market on the Continent and our own system of support of prices. Again, that is a matter for adjustment of the two systems, or possibly the absorption of one system by another, I cannot be impressed by the argument that we have to maintain our support of prices in this country, because the lesson of two world wars has taught us that we cannot afford to leave ourselves wide open to another aggressor. If anyone thinks that this country is going to be faced with another world war lasting about six years in which we would be surrounded by submarines and faced with starvation, he is a little out of touch with the times. I do not think that is the form which future wars will take. It is one of the lingering fallacies about the agricultural position which we can well eliminate from this discussion.
Another point that I should like to clear up is the question of mobility of labour. When I objected to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), the Minister got hold of a copy of the Rome Treaty and gleefully looked at it to see if


mobility of labour was provided for. He was very triumphant when he found that there was such provision. My right hon. Friend equally gleefully handed me a copy of the Treaty so that I could see that it was in fact the case that the mobility of labour was provided for. But what I said in my interjection was not that there was no provision for such mobility, but that the provisions in the Treaty were not provisions which said that there should be an unrestricted flow of labour between the countries.
I have not a copy with me now, but hon. Members can check what Article 48 of the Treaty says. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton read in rather sinister tones one of the main provisions, that there should be no discrimination between the workers of the nations in matters of wages and conditions of employment. I should have thought that the whole House would welcome that. There is to be no discrimination of race, colour, creed, wages, conditions of employment and the rest, but that has nothing to do with freedom of movement. Where foreign workers are working side by side with national workers there should be no discrimination, but the Treaty then provides that foreign workers can go to another country if they have a job already offered to them.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Article 48 provides in the first paragraph for free movement of workers without qualification. The next paragraph says that there shall be abolition of any discrimination and the next paragraph says that it shall include the right to accept offers of employment and does not restrict it. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was absolutely right.

Mr. Hynd: May I point out, with all respect, that when it provides that there should be provision for the free movement of labour, it goes on to tell us what that free movement means and, if we look further on in the Treaty, we find another section which also provides that it shall be subject to such regulations as may be adopted, and so on. So that the whole of the section is ringed in with these checks which make it quite clear that there is no intention that there shall be complete and unrestricted freedom of movement of labour.
I believe that certain of these regulations are already in draft, and that one is that the movement of workers to a particular district in another country shall be permitted in so far as it does not affect the conditions of the local workers or the prospects of employment of the local workers.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that these points are made in paragraph 3, but they in no way limit the complete freedom which is set out in paragraph 1, because the former is included in the latter and does not limit it.

Mr. Hynd: I cannot read out the words because I have not them here. If the right hon. Gentleman will read carefully the Article about the regulations which may be introduced, he will see that it is clear that that Article is for the purpose of ensuring that there is no indiscriminate mass movement of workers from one country to another. In any case, this can easily be confirmed or otherwise by careful reading of the Treaty. [Laughter.] I do not know what the amusement is about. I suggest that hon. Members should read the Treaty carefully. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When hon. Members say in the House, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, that in the Treaty it is provided that there shall be unrestricted movement of labour, I must point out that this is not true, that there are provisions for regulations and that specific conditions are laid down in the Treaty under which such movement can take place.
I should have dealt with a number of other points but for the interruptions, and I do not want to take advantage of them to delay the House much longer. But I should like to deal with E.F.T.A. Much has been said about our ties with the E.F.T.A. countries. It has been said that we cannot desert our E.F.T.A. partners or sell them down the river, otherwise "Perfidious Albion" would once more be a phrase printed on the minds of our Continental friends.
Nobody has suggested anything of the kind. Many of my hon. Friends, and some hon. Members opposite, say that we should never have taken this stupid step, which was interpreted as a defiance of the Common Market group even if it was not so intended. I know that we


talk about building bridges and making it easier for the non-members to negotiate with the members, but whether the Government are prepared to admit it or not, and whether it is true or not, I assure the House that the general impression among the members of the Six is that the E.F.T.A. was formed for no other reason than to enable us to press a harder bargain with the Six. That is unfortunate, but since E.F.T.A. is in existence, clearly we cannot just walk out of it and leave the other members.
We have brought Austria, in particular, into a very difficult situation, in which, because of our exclusion from the Six, she is left on the other side of the Six, trying to maintain a community with us over the heads of the Six, when her conventional trade has been mainly with Eastern Europe and Germany. She is now having to try to fit herself into a curious community of Baltic countries and Britain, and she is worried about the implications in respect of her neutrality arrangements with Russia. Switzerland is in a less difficult situation, politically, but geographically she is in the same position, and so far she is still concerned about her neutrality.
We cannot walk out of E.F.T.A. and say that we are no longer interested in it. But there is no reason that we should. I reject the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that in a spirit of magnanimity we should go to the great community of the Six, which is growing in its independence and confidence, and say, "One solution of this problem is that you should join our little Seven". I will not try to analyse the economic implications of that, but I can see the political implications at once. The mood of the Six at present is a mood of great confidence and great dynamism. They are going forward without England. M. Spaak said in 1940 in London that after the war Europe would unite under the leadership of Britain or she would unite without Britain. They now feel that they have no alternative but to unite without Britain. This places us, in our near panic, in a position in which we are worried to death about it, and we offer one solution—"All get together and join us"; but that would not work, and it would be psychological blunder to make the offer.
In fact there are many other possibilities which I could suggest. Personally I believe that the only proposition which will have any effect at all on the new Community is for us now to make a clear declaration that we not only welcome the new unity in Europe and are prepared to support it up to the limit but are ourselves prepared to join the Community of the Six as a full member. We should say that because of the way in which things have developed, largely because of our lack of a policy in the past, we realise that there are certain difficulties to be adjusted, certain misunderstandings to be cleared away and certain adjustments to be made about Commonwealth trade; and that we therefore hope that the Six will meet us to discuss the elimination of these obstacles in order to make it possible for us to join the Six as a full member.
I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will reject that idea. I simply say that it is the only thing which will satisfy the Six at present. They may be wrong, but it is well known to every hon. Member Who has had any contacts with leading personalities in Europe that the Six are now in a mood in which they are a little tired of our attitude.
When the Minister of State went to Paris and made the offer about Euratom, it had an impact, but there was a great deal of doubt as to what it meant. Suggestions were made that it was a new departure in policy and that the Government at last meant to do something. It was suggested that this was a way of getting through the door and that if we joined Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community, then we must come into the Common Market, too. There were, however, great doubts, and people asked, "How many more of these gimmicks will you offer? Why not say that you want to come into the new Community?"
Many of us tried to persuade them that something serious was intended, but we were surprised today when the Foreign Secretary said that there was nothing in it at all, that it was not a definite offer, that it was not a change of policy and that it was merely a statement that we are prepared to discuss the possibilities. This is what people in Europe suspected when they first heard it. Some of us tried to persuade them that it was not


so, but now that this has been confirmed they will say, "What kind of a gimmick will they offer us next?"
The Six have made a good start, and they are conscious of the fact that, as wars and crises recede, so this development of theirs becomes more difficult. They are very conscious of this and they are determined to go ahead with it. They are growing more and more impatient of anybody who tries by any means to hold it up or who cannot be convinced that they are serious about it.
I therefore believe that if this debate is to achieve anything at all, it can do so only 'by a representative number of hon. Members on both sides of the House making it clear that this is not a party question and that on both sides of the House there is sufficient drive towards this country joining the new Europe to give a little more heart and encouragement to those who are getting on with this vast experiment.
We must show that many of us who take that attitude are taking it not because we want to encourage anyone in any risky adventures. Whatever we do would be a risky adventure. But we are taking it because we are convinced that history shows that as communities grow from small into larger communities and then into great political communities, there is never any going back. The growth of those communities throughout history has shown that it has always been to the advantage and never to the disadvantage of the generality of the new community.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Very many hon. Members are trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so I shall be as brief as possible. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his arguments, tempting though it is. Nor do I think it necessary to rehearse all the economic arguments in detail. In passing, however, may I say how delighted I was that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) made the point which he did about diversion of investment.
I did manage, both in an earlier debate in this House and certainly at the W.E.U. meeting, at Paris, to, produce a large number of figures—which, I hasten

to assure the House, I shall not weary it by reading again—showing that a grave danger has already started of British and European investment being diverted to other countries in Europe rather than going to the under-developed countries in the rest of the world. There is also a danger of United States capital being unnecessarily spread throughout Europe and to the detriment of this country. The third danger, which the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned later in his speech, is that we should be driven to over-reliance in our exports on consumer goods.
As I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary here, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will turn his attention to improving our export technique and to encouraging further investment, and I also hope that the Treasury will henceforth keep a rather more open mind on fiscal and other forms of economic policy to meet these dangers, whatever the European solution in detail may be.
I thought that there was almost a touching unanimity between the two Front Benches today, in view of the programme for the rest of the week. Both were reluctant to hurry into the Rome Treaty, and, despite the anger which I roused from my Labour colleagues in W.E.U. by saying so, I think that, again today, the Opposition Front Bench was even more cautious than the Treasury Bench, although there was very little in it.
As one who has in the past joined those who blamed various Governments for not giving a lead in Europe in time, it is with immense reluctance that I think that at this moment probably the right course for the Government to pursue is the one of inaction which they have indicated this afternoon. I do not think that we can join the Common Market. Nor do I think, despite what the hon. Member for Attercliffe has said, that the Six would necessarily welcome it. We should not necessarily be accepted if we made a direct approach now and said, "Here we are; on bended knee we ask forgiveness. May we sign your treaty?" Nor do I think that any British Government could properly make that gesture in the circumstances.
Despite the fact that we cannot sign the Rome Treaty now, the Government


might have framed the Motion with a little more enthusiasm. It refers to the very major needs of the future—the raiding of the Iron Curtain, the solution of German unification, and so on—but it does so in terms very much more suitable to a Victorian father welcoming a suitable young woman with a suitable dowry as his suitable daughter-in-law. I think that that is perhaps what the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) meant when he talked of the efforts which the Government could make to project a more pro-European image of itself in the rest of Europe.
At this moment it is very hard to say just what sort of action the British Government can take to give a load, but there are one or two things we can do. I do not think that saying that we are willing to sign the Rome Treaty on conditions which have already been rejected by European Governments would give a lead, but there are certain other things that we can do.
We can make it clear that we know what the situation is, that we accept it and, indeed, welcome it. Despite the different views about the mobility of 'atom, one facet that we must accept is 'that perhaps confusion arises because some of the European countries which signed the Roman Treaty did so with mental reservations which it would not he correct for a British Government to make. If we sign the Treaty we must accept all its implications. We cannot sign it and then, at a later stage, say, "We did not quite mean it to be taken like that; we will put in a reservation about the mobility of labour"—or whatever it is.
We could show Europeans that we know what the situation is and are ready to make a fresh approach on the basis of drawing the Six and the Seven closer together, including, perhaps, the method referred to by the right hon. Member for Huyton and which, I think, was first suggested by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)—that the Six should collectively join the Free Trade Association. In doing this, it is very important to show that we are not willing to be bullied, that we will not accept the blame for all the failures of the past, but that if there is blame to be apportioned other countries must bear the burden for

it as well. This may involve doing what is the hardest thing for any enthusiast to do—waiting. However, I am not sure that the delay is necessarily harmful to British interests.
There are certain difficulties which are shown by the sort of reservations mentioned by the right hon. Member for Attercliffe, certain difficulties which the signatories of the Rome Treaty are finding in implementing some of its provisions—a recent example concerned the terms of admission of Greece. As time passes some of the details of the Rome Treaty to which we objected may be found to entail difficulty for some of the signatories, and our approaches may become more welcome because of the delay.
We should use this period of delay wisely. We could study what the situation is at home and the methods which we can develop to meet either possibility—whether we do or do not succeed in getting a closer association within the next few months. We can build up the strength and unity of the Free Trade Association, not with a view to defying the Common Market but more with a view to showing the whole of Europe that the sort of association that we originally planned and pleaded for can work without some of those details that we originally objected to. It is not a question of showing them that the Free Trade Association is better than the Common Market, or more powerful, or that we can do without the Common Market, but, more perhaps, of reassuring them that it can work without those provisions of the Rome Treaty which we found to be unacceptable.
During the delay there is a great deal that we can do to study in the Commonwealth what preferences might be given away. I am not as optimistic as some people about the willingness of the Europeans to give a quid pro quo, but there is work to be done in detail as to how we can get a closer association with Europe without damaging our Commonwealth interests and the interests of the Commonwealth.
We can also co-operate with all the European countries in O.E.E.C. in planning aid for under-developed countries. I must here make a factual correction. German capital through the Common Market has been invested in the


Common Market countries. So far the Germans have refused to let their capital go to countries outside Europe through the Common Market organisation.

Mr. J. Hynd: But in the Common Market organisation they have the development fund, to which Germany is committed to make very vast contributions.

Mr. Macmillan: That is so, but the contributions are limited to contributions in Europe, and it is France that is investing in the ex-French possessions in Africa. Of course, it is perfectly true to say that the capacity of France to do that may be increased by investment of German money in Europe, including France, but, for us, that is not helping the situation in regard to the other underdeveloped countries, especially in Africa, but is making it more difficult.
We must make sure that our position is clear; that we are not trying to modify the internal arrangement of the Six; that we are not trying to do anything to their detriment or to destroy their unity in any way; but that we are trying to include that unity in a wider economic and political association. I think that the sort of pressure that this debate can give is helpful. The mere fact that when I first started speaking in this House on European unity, nearly five years ago, there were never more than half a dozen hon. Members in the Chamber, and that now there are 20 or 30 trying to speak, is an indication not only here but to the rest of the world of how much more widely spread the desire for association between the United Kingdom and Europe now is.
The difficulty about signing the Rome Treaty with certain conditions, as has been suggested, is that we are not then joining a Common Market, but turning it into a Free Trade Area with conditions that have already been rejected by the other members. I therefore accept—though, I admit, reluctantly—that we cannot join the Common Market as it now is, but I wonder whether the Government would indicate whether or not we are willing to join some sort of Common Market. I ask my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade to say so tonight.
Some time ago, General de, Gaulle made a speech, to which the hon. Mem-

ber for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) also referred. It is true that in that speech General de Gaulle accepted the Rome Treaty, but he equally indicated his wish that individual countries in Europe should retain their identity, and that their co-operation should be of the sort that led to what he called a confederation rather than a federal union, with supranational authority and so on.
I shall not go into the details now, but I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade has studied them very closely, and I would ask him to tell us tonight whether he accepts those ideas. After all, General de Gaulle's views on that subject are worthy of consideration, and perhaps it would help if my right hon. Friend could give the assurance tonight that the British Government are willing to take up those ideas, and to use them as a basis for future negotiation.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I think that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) was somewhat confused about the difference between the Common Market and a free trade area. I do not press that matter, but he raised three other points to which a reply is due. He spoke of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) of the Common Market coming into association with the Free Trade Association as a kind of eighth partner in that Association.
I might say, in passing, that I believe that suggestion is doomed to failure as, indeed, is any other suggestion unless there is for the Six member countries of the Common Market the principle of a Customs union. Therefore, association with the Seven in the Free Trade Association—which is quite completely different in regard to the external tariffs in the Common Market—will be something quite against the principles which, I believe, they would accept.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a problem about which there was controversy between my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) and the President of the Board of Trade—mobility of labour. I interjected to say that the mobility-of-labour clause in the Treaty of Rome was conditioned by the fact that under the regulations of


the Six, workers can move to another country only to take up jobs actually offered to them when it has been found impossible to recruit workers in the locality concerned. In addition to that, there are guarantees against a quick change of labour in the self-same clause of the Common Market regulations. I have that I have made that clear, and I think that if the Common Market Treaty is examined I will be found to have rightly interpreted it.
The hon. Member for Halifax said that he thought that the Common Market countries did not want Britain in association with them. I would refer him to an article in the Daily Mail of last Thursday—and the Daily Mail is certainly a newspaper whose reporters look objectively at these matters. That article said that the Six want Britain in the Common Market. It quotes Professor Hallstein, the President of the Common Market Commission—described in the article as the "uncrowned king of the new Europe" as saying:
It is not a question of whether we want Britain, but does Britain want us? This uncertaking"—
the Common Market—
is not complete without Britain.
That, I think, belies the hon. Gentleman's statement, and also belies many of the statements of many Ministers as to whether the Common Market countries wait Britain or whether Britain wants to go into the Common Market—

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I was not, I think, quite as dogmatic as the hon. Member makes me out to be. I said that I was not sure whether or not the Six would welcome us. I thought that there was great argument on both sides. I read that article. I have talked to a large number of French Parliamentarians, who would certainly welcome us, and, also, to a great number of French industrialists, officials at the Quai D'Orsay and others, who certainly would not. I think that it would be very unsafe to be dogmatic about whether the French or the Community would welcome us on their terms. They certainly would not welcome us on ours.

Mr. Winterbottom: I apologise for saying that the hon. Gentleman was dogmatic, but he certainly gave me that impression. What I wanted to impress upon him was that the situation was not

quite so rigid as I gathered from his speech, but that there was a certain flexibility about it. In speaking to Continental politicians belonging to countries in association with the Common Market, I have found an earnest desire to see Britain in it, and playing her part in the progressive intergration of Europe.
I must confess that my first compelling urge in speaking tonight was to analyse the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. I congratulate him on a rather splendid review of the European situation as it is. He was quite masterly in dealing with the financial implications for Britain if we failed to participate in the movement towards central European integration, but he gave only a little peep into the future and avoided a very straight look.
In fact—and I told my right hon. Friend that I would say this—I think that his speech was a kind of skeleton with no entrails, a shape of things to come without any attempt at a positive answer to the problem which we in Britain must face, whether we like it or not, if we are to survive both economically and politically as a leading European Power. My right hon. Friend reminded me of my old grandfather who, when I went in one day with a bleeding nose from a boyish prank, said to me, "Laddie, you will lose a lot of battles in your life, but I hope that you will never lose a challenge." I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton today refused the challenge of the Common Market issue in its relationship with Britain.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend is like so many on both sides of the House, and, indeed, like the parties in this House; they do not seem to want to face the issue. I regret to say that my own party is among them. They find it much more difficult to make up their minds than to find what they hope will be a successful dodge from the issue. Let us face this fact, and I give my considered opinion on the matter: we are dodging the issue of the Common Market, both economically and politically, and all that is implied by political association. It is because I believe that we have tried to find a successful dodge that we are in the present situation with regard to European integration.
Events in the last three years have proved conclusively—and I think there


are very few Members who will contradict this statement—that the British conception of a free trade area cannot be negotiated with Central Europe, enabling us in future to participate in a market embracing 150 million people, unless we join the Common Market. We must face that fact, whether we like it or not. If we are not prepared to face it, we are simply dodging the issue. It is important for Britain's political prestige and economic well-being that we should face this issue now.
This weekend I received a document which I was rather surprised to receive. It was signed by many prominent people in this country, including many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It said:
Time is running short and there may be only a few months left for a new approach before the Common Market enters its new stage of integration.
I call the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to that statement—"Time is running short". It is said that we should re-examine the British position with regard to the Common Market, and I believe that that is right.
That document represents the view of many Members of this House and many more people in the country that the time has now come for us to join the Common Market. Whether we like it or not, we must condemn ourselves for the fact that even before the Common Market was instituted, and even before the Rome Treaty became applicable, we have negotiated with great cleverness but with very little sincerity.
In proof of that, I want to quote from a report of a committee of the Deutsch Gesellschaft, in Konigswinter, in 1957, at the time when the Rome Treaty was being negotiated. I am not suggesting that the Konigswinter conference is an official body. Usually, at a conference of that description, there is an objective study of some special European problem. In this case, I believe that it examined objectively the problem of the Common Market. This is what was said in the report of that committee which dealt specifically with the problem of the Common Market in Europe:
The main question which was asked by the German side with pleasing frankness was: is Britain prepared to co-operate honestly?

Let us face the fact that there will never be European political and economic integration unless Britain stops the dodging process and prepares to cooperate honestly. That statement was made in 1957. I want to know whether anything has been done since that would restore confidence in Britain so far as the Common Market Commission is concerned, to ensure that some form of agreement less than the Common Market Agreement would be negotiated, in view of the way that we have treated the countries of the Six.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton was too kind to the President of the Board of Trade. He certainly spared the rod all right. I feel much more truculent. There 'have been Ministerial changes, and I think that there will be more of such changes. I hope that as a result of this debate today the Prime Minister will be prepared to accept some further form of negotiation with the Common Market countries, and I hope that in his selection of new Ministers he will change the present President of the Board of Trade. I do not doubt the sincerity and integrity of the President of the Board of Trade, but I think that he has approached the problem of negotiations with the Common Market countries with that typical British insularity which ought to have been destroyed in two world wars with the bombs and the bullets.
The right hon. Gentleman's final negotiation of the seven-nation free trade agreement may look very well on paper. Indeed, it may be a step towards some form of European integration. But does anybody doubt for a moment that the existence of that Free Trade Area, as distinct from the Common Market, must ultimately divide Europe both politically and economically if the development of the Common Market as it is today is continued? The President of the Board of Trade may have been the means of so dividing Europe as to allow for the encroachment of Communism.
I have one or two more questions to ask. Can it be doubted that, however good the seven-nation free trade agreement is, the movement towards integration in Central Europe will continue? I believe that it will continue. We are not dealing with a movement which is concerned only with the economic problems


of Central Europe. We are not dealing with a movement concerned only with the political problems of Central Europe. We are dealing with what is, in effect, a spiritual movement beyond both those matters, a movement which seeks to create unity and security in Central Europe.
Can it be doubted that the developments which are already beginning to take place through the bank which has been set up, through the investment for backward nations, and through the conception of social advances in welfare and security will continued? Can it be doubted that, in course of time, if Britain is not part of this movement, she will suffer both economically and politically?
I am prepared to agree that, once we have the seven-nation free trade agreement, we cannot ditch it. Many people ale talking about the neutral countries of the Seven being unable to join in any way whatever with the Common Market, and it is said that the reason is the growing tendency towards political unity in Central Europe. Surely, if there is anything good in the Stockholm Agreement of the Seven, it is that the Seven nations themselves will tend towards some form of political unity. Even in the seven-nation agreement, there is provision for majority control so far as the Ministers are concerned. That is a form of political unity.
I see no reason at all why the three neutral countries of the Seven cannot be catered for in some way, through, let us say, association with the Common Market, fusing their economic interests without the tie of fusing their external policies or even entering into military alliances. I believe that it should be possible to convince the three neutral nations of the Seven that they can join the Common Market purely as associate members on the economic side alone. For Britain and for the other three nations of the Seven, I see no reason at all why we should not declare that we will accept as quickly as possible full membership rights in the Common Market and the Euratom agreement.

Mr. Denys Bullard: Does not that mean that we should also immediately give away our Commonwealth preferences and associations and the whole of our agricultural policy?

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to accept that? I am very much with him in some of the aims he is advancing, but, surely, those are impossible considerations for us.

Mr. Winterbottom: I am not an expert on agriculture. Even though I have criticised him tonight, I will accept the word of the President of the Board of Trade that the issue of agriculture is not now a barrier to Britain joining the Common Market. There is provision in the Common Market agreement allowing for the agricultural problems of certain countries. Fifty per cent. of the goods that come to this country from the Commonwealth are associated with what is in the Common Market loosely called agriculture. There is, therefore, no difficulty if we enter the Common Market on the principles which have been accepted by the Common Market in respect of France. There is really no reason why we should not have special consideration similar to that which has been given to France in that respect.
However, who am I to speak for agriculture? I have neither been a farmer nor am I the son of a farmer. To be quite frank, I am not very interested in the agricultural side of our economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] One cannot be interested in everything in the complicated world of politics. Let us be quite fair about it. It takes one all his time to specialise in one or two things and to concentrate on those in the House of Commons. I reckon that it is a Member's duty in the House to make an effort to concentrate in that way for the benefit of all hon. Members, and I freely give of the results of that concentration to all.
Only one-eighth of our trade from Commonwealth sources would be affected by our joining the Common Market. Even that problem, which includes the problem of grey cloth from India, could be subject to special negotiation within the Common Market Commission. There is no insuperable reason that I can see why Britain should continue further to dissociate itself from the Common Market.
Not only from the economic point of view but from the political point of view as well, if the free world is to survive and, in its survival, yield a greater and greater standard of living for its people


—if it is not to succumb to the influences of Communism in Europe where the challenge is probably most acute—then we must, in that struggle, work only towards the unity of free Europe itself. I believe that the first step should be taken now. Time is important, as we are told in the document which has been circulated to us.
We must remember that it was for the countries of Central Europe that we fought. Indeed, the First World War started over Belgium in 1914, which we defended, and the Second World War began over Poland, in 1939. We should grasp the principle that we fought for in those days and apply it to economic and political affairs today as we assess the priorities which should apply for Britain and our relationships with Europe.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: While I cannot accept the strictures passed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) upon my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade nor upon the formation of E.F.T.A., because, if Europe is to be divided at all, it had better be divided into two rather than splintered into twenty, I agree with him that there are many hon. Members in the House who are not facing the issue.
The issue before us can, I think, be stated by quoting some recent words of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade:
The problem of European trading relations is without question one of the most serious and urgent which is facing British industry and the Government.
Hon. Members may have noted in yesterday's Sunday Times that Mr. Adlai Stevenson wrote:
The division between Britain and the Six Common Market countries…I regard as being of great potential danger to the stability of Europe. In the context of Africa…
which was the subject of his article—
…it seems wholly disruptive.
Some weeks ago I and some of my hon. Friends put on the Order Paper a Motion urging Her Majesty's Government, after consulting with the Commonwealth and our partners in E.F.T.A.—and, of course, I agree with the right

hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that that is essential—
to put forward firm proposals for negotiation with the Six
and to do so
without further delay".
For how long can we afford to wait before making a serious and positive effort to solve this urgent problem? We are told that we fear a rebuff, but even if our negotiable proposals—we certainly would not put them down and say, "Take them or leave them"—were to be repudiated, should we be in a worse position than we are now?
This problem exists because of one of the most hopeful events which ever befell Europe—the Common Market. I believe that Her Majesty's Government regard the Common Market in that light. There is said to be a record of a wager in the betting book at Brook's Club made immediately after Bleriot had flown the Channel to the effect that
This aviation business will certainly fizzle out.
I do not think that Her Majesty's Government made so poor an appreciation of the future of the Six. They or perhaps I should say it is here to stay. It is the flowering of the famous seed sown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) at Zurich in 1946.
Part of my right hon. Friend's speech has been quoted by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), and I should like our European friends to note that the original Churchill rôle for Britain was that of a friend and sponsor to a united states of Europe. He did not then envisage that we should become one of them ourselves. That was followed by a series of conventional treaties on the traditional pattern—Dunkirk, Brussels and Washington. Nevertheless, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and with some hon. Members who have spoken that the Labour Government made a mistake in refusing even to join the preliminary discussions of the Coal and Steel Community. I do not think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, (Mr. J. Hynd) made a very good defence of that omission. Equally, I believe that the Conservative Government made a mistake in not joining the European Defence Community. Had we done so,


France would not have strangled her own baby at birth.
Where were the British leaders of the United Europe movement? They were in the British Cabinet, where, one would have thought, if anywhere, they could have put their principles into practice. Such a partial surrender of sovereignty over part of our Armed Forces would surely be no greater than we have now agreed to surrender to N.A.T.O. It would be trifling compared with the surrender of sovereignty which we shall make if we sign the disarmament agreement which is apparently contemplated with unanimous equanimity in the Western plan.
That is all of the past.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman said, I think correctly, that the Government made a mistake in not going to the preliminary negotiation of the Coal and Steel Community. In view of the six years' experience of that failure, surely it was an even greater failure of the Government not to go to the preliminary discussions on the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Longden: That may be so, but I am now turning to the future. I admit that, in my view, for what it is worth, the Government made a mistake in not joining the proposed European army.
'What do the Government now intend? Here are some quotations from recent Ministerial speeches. On 2nd June, at the Western European Union Assembly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said:
It is important for the West to close its ranks…Unity in Western Europe is vital…The present course of East-West relations merely serves to underline the need which already existed for political unity both on an Atlantic and a European basis.
Amid no great acclamation, my right hon. Friend told the Assembly what Her Majesty's Government were prepared to do
I can say that the British Government…will certainly be ready to consider anew the proposal that Britain should join Euratom and indeed the European Coal and Steel Community as well".
He added that it would be after consultation with our partners in E.F.T.A. There are many other similar announcements of intention stretching back over the last few years, and now we have the Motion on the Order Paper:

…this House recognises the need for political and economic unity in Europe"—
including, of course, Great Britain.

Mr. Holt: As part of Europe, as the Foreign Secretary said.

Mr. Longden: As the Foreign Secretary said, we are part of Europe, and Europe includes Britain.
We are entitled to be told precisely, not only what the Government mean by these oft-repeated phrases, such as "political unity", "fundamental unity" and "integration", but also what they propose to do now in order to achieve what they mean. I would rather that they took a brick and threw it through the windows of the European Economic Community than that they were afraid to drop a brick at all. What I am sure they do not mean is that we should sign the Treaty of Rome as it stands or enter the Common Market, come what may.
On 6th July there was an article in The Times by its political correspondent, the first sentence of which reads as follows:
Mr. Maudling, the President of the Board of Trade, when he attended a private meeting of three back bench Conservative Committees—foreign affairs, trade and agriculture—at the House of Commons last night came out strongly against Government critics who say Britain should enter the Common Market, 'come what may'".
That statement could, in this context, have been based only on guesswork, and, because it may well have caused some alarm to our partners in E.F.T.A., to say nothing of many Conservatives in the country, and because it would not tend to make our negotiations with the Six any easier, I wrote three sentences to The Times to say that I did not know of one Member on this side of the House who would be prepared to sign the Treaty of Rome as it stands.
Because pressure on space prevented the publication of my letter, I repeat the gist of it now. Where a cleavage of opinion does no doubt exist on these benches is on the question of timing and tactics. Perhaps it is best summarised by saying that some of those behind cry "Forward", while those before cry, if not "Back", at any rate "Halt".
Why cannot we sign the Treaty as it stands?

Mr. H. Wilson: There are many misunderstandings in Europe and positions and attitudes taken up on both sides of the House of Commons. While I was in Paris during the weekend, I heard quite authoritatively what I had not heard in this country: that either the meeting to which the hon. Member is referring or a meeting of the 1922 Committee had voted with a big majority for going into the Six. Will the hon. Member say whether that is true? It would be helpful to get the answer clear.

Mr. Longden: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the proceedings of party committees are private. I can, however, tell him that never at a Conservative Party committee meeting is a vote taken. The rumour that the right hon. Gentleman heard in Paris had no connection whatever with the meeting that I have just described.
There are substantial reasons, but I do not believe them to be insuperable, why we cannot go into the Treaty of Rome as it stands. There is, first, the agricultural reason, but I shall not go further into it because two of my hon. Friends who know much more about the subject than I do have already dealt with it. There is, however, a List G in the Treaty of Rome and I should like to read to the House a sentence from The Times Agricultural Supplement of 5th July, written by Mr. J. T. Beresford:
As things have turned out, it might have paid us better agriculturally if Britain had become the seventh members of the Six. Now that the E.E.C's draft farm policy has been published—at the time of writing it is before the Council of Ministers—it proves, in some respects, to be no less than our own Agriculture Act writ large.
Then, we come to the Commonwealth. If I believed that our entering more closely into Europe would conflict substantially with our Commonwealth interests, I would have no more to do with it. It is, for example, quite impossible, in my view, that we should be asked to put a 20 per cent. duty, even initially, upon food and raw materials from the Commonwealth. Not only would that be to invite inflation here, but it would materially damage our colonial interests. One of the best forms of aid to developing countries is to help them to sell their exports.
Is not this too negotiable? What became of the recommendation which was

made at the unofficial Commonwealth Conference held at Palmerston, New Zealand, in January, 1959, when the committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) recommended a joint approach by the Commonwealth to the Six? No more was heard of that. Presumably, however, this question must have been thoroughly discussed at the recent Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. What was the outcome? Did the Commonwealth Prime Ministers agree with the Palmerston Conference that there is no need for these interests to conflict? Did they not perceive that what would be a danger, both to the Commonwealth and to our position in it, would be for us to become economically isolated as an offshore island of Europe? An economic unit based on a population of 50 million or even 90 million, cannot compete with units based on populations three or four times that size. These are the days of the big battalions.
If we remain out, we and each Commonwealth country must make individual bargains with the Government of the Six. Are we not more useful to the Commonwealth, in bargaining for better terms for Commonwealth consumer goods, than by providing the Commonwealth countries with protected but dwindling markets here?
The third and most important of these objections is the question of sovereignty and whether we should be called upon to make too big a surrender of sovereignty. But who knows? The Treaty of Rome itself makes no reference to this. Contrary to the general opinion, no declaration either for or against federation is made in the Treaty of Rome. Of course, as the right hon. Member for Huyton has said, we all know that there are powerful lobbies in France and Germany which openly proclaim that federal union is their ultimate objective.
Listen, however to what M. Spaak said in an interview a few weeks ago. He was asked whether he thought that there was a danger of a split in Europe and, therefore, a threat to the Western Alliance. He replied:
Luckily, up to the present, the discussions between the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. have not had any repercussions within the Alliance, and I trust they never will have. I believe moreover


that it would be relatively easy to find a solution if the political problems, which must prevail over the technical arrangements, were presented in the right way.
In the television broadcast by the President of France on 31st May, to which reference has been made, President de Gaulle presented these problems in, at least, a rather different way. Perhaps it is worth while putting these few sentences on the record. He said:
What France wants to do is to contribute to the building of Western Europe into a political, economic, cultural and human grouping—organised for action, progress and defence…Of course, it is necessary that the nations which are now co-operating should not cease to be themselves; and that the trend to be followed should be that of organised cooperation of States, pending the advent, perhaps, of an imposing confederation.
Somebody remarked earlier in this debate that the President of France was an extreme nationalist, but I think it would be truer today that de Gaulle is divided into three parts: he is a nationalist, a soldier, and a world statesman; anti in this pronouncement on television they seem to have reached a compromise.
On the question of sovereignty generally I ask the House to listen to some rather prophetic words which were written in a book called "The Endless Adventure" by F. S. Oliver thirty years ago:
The force of circumstances may some day bring them"—
he is talking about the States of Europe—
face to face with these alternatives. They may be driven by…defeat to surrender to a conqueror that which they have clung to so passionately"—
that is, their sovereignty—
and they may find peace and security at last in some imperial system, vaster and infinitely more complex than the empire of the Antonines. Or, on the other hand, their imagination working on their memories, may show them a prospect of evils in comparison with which even the loss of their sovereign independence will appear tolerable—a vision of modern warfare, glamourless, impersonal, mechanical, ubiquitous; a dismal twilight reddened by bursts of flame; vapour settling like a pall on doomed cities; inventions, and yet more inventions, threatening a universal destruction. If such a vision ever came to be believed in firmly, it might lead in time to a covenanted union of the States of Europe.
Such a vision seems much less unlikely today than it did thirty years ago No State today is a vat sufficiently large and powerful to stand on its own bottom as Presumption advocated in

The Pilgrim's Progress. Salvation lies in collective security, and collective security implies some surrender of sovereignty.
For many reasons, I cannot see this country entering into a real federation in the near future. For one reason, a complete federation in which each country ceased to be itself, to use President de Gaulle's words, would reduce the West's voting power at the United Nations. But it is a question of degree. If it is true that the Treaty of Rome is re-negotiable, which we are told, it is time we made up our minds as to where the balance of advantage to us and to our Commonwealth lies. It is no longer essentially an economic problem, though, goodness knows, that is very strong indeed for these islands. Our political future is also at stake.
Only the Government can tell the nation where our political advantage lies. Some industries will suffer, others will gain; but the ones which would suffer, if they were able to understand that what we propose to do is in the general interest, would, I think, respond. One thing upon which they all agree, so far as I can see, is that the present situation is not advantageous.
In any effort to change it I maintain that we must tell our allies just how far we can go to meet their political aspirations, because I do not think they know. And do we? Many, if not all, roads lead to Rome, and perhaps the most hopeful one for us is via Brussels. Our allies in Western European Union are awaiting the result of our reconsideration of the proposal that we should join Euratom. First we have to know if we should be welcome, says my right hon. Friend The Minister of State. We should be welcomed by Parliamentarians. But by Governments? We must know on what terms. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Brightside.
The Six do want us to come in, but on what terms? That is what has to be decided. When and how are we going to get them? The time has passed when we could have dictated our own terms.
I should like to recall to my right hon. Friends that, in a debate in the House on 26th and 27th June, 1950, when we were in Opposition, they clearly envisaged the risk which separation from


France and Germany would bring and they urged that a much stronger effort should be made by the Labour Government to find a formula which would satisfy the French while preserving essential British interests. Why cannot we do just that now?

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: If he will allow me to say so, I thought that a great part of the speech of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) was very good sense. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will answer the questions which the hon. Member put to him in the early part of his speech. There is no doubt whatsoever that the problem which we are discussing is a political and not an economic one. There is no doubt that the combination is a combination for political purposes and that the Community which is based on the vision of its original founders is being translated into practice by a very able team of civil servants in Brussels.
It is based on the belief that if one tries to harmonise the economic systems of a number of countries it undoubtedly leads to political unification. Those who have visited Brussels and have spoken to Professor Hallstein and his colleagues know that they would be willing and pleased to have us in, but they make absolutely clear that if we join we must accept the direction of the political advance which they are making.
But the final political goal has by no means been defined. If it had been, it is certainly true that General de Gaulle would never have continued to support that Treaty. The President of the Board of Trade seems to think that one cannot join an organisation which is a political organisation unless one knows entirely the form that it will take when one gets to the end, but this is not so. As the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West has said, the Treaty is renegotiable.
The argument against our joining on the ground that we have to sign the Treaty as it stands is not a sound argument, because article 237 of the Treaty says:
The conditions of admission and the amendments to this Treaty necessitated thereby shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State.

Such agreement shall be submitted to all the contracting States for ratification in accordance with their respective constitutional rules.
Therefore, if we tried to join, it would be possible to renegotiate some parts of the Treaty, particularly those concerning agricultural produce, and Commonwealth products.
What is impressive about the Community is the pragmatic way in which it works. It is not the high-falutin Continental constitution-mongering of which we have accused Europeans in the past. Each step is laid down in the Treaty, but each step is taken only after the fullest examination of existing conditions and after agreement among the Council of Ministers, which is a confederal and not federal institution.
The harmonising and speeding up of external tariffs was made possible only by the dynamic effect of the Treaty on the countries themselves. It was only after the fact of the dynamism became clear that it was possible to speed up the harmonisation of tariffs. It is this very dynamism that presents a challenge to this country. The cause of the dynamism is not entirely clear, but undoubtedly the rate of expansion in the countries of the Common Market, together with their larger population, will provide a much larger market for industrial goods in future than exists in the Free Trade Area, and this will form a very large base for investment and research and development which should lead to further expansion.
There is already impressive evidence of the concentration and rationalisation of production among the firms in the European Community, and undoubtedly they will secure great economies in production. The attempt by the Government to form a Free Trade Area did not begin to touch this question at all. The present leaders of the European Community are not Liberal free-traders. Indeed, in the eyes of Dr. Erhardt, they are very dangerous dirigistes. The advantages of the Common Market over the Free Trade Area are exactly that it involves a degree of economic planning, including the harmonisation of fiscal and social policies, which enables it to ease the dislocation caused by the steps taken toward free trade.
This is very important from our point of view. In fact, I did not understand my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who seemed to me to have become an extreme liberal free trader who appeared to want to encourage redevelopment of free trade without any of the safeguards that the Common Market has against dislocations caused by the abolition of tariffs between countries. I do not want that soft of Free Trade Area.
I want the sort of Free Trade Area where there is a necessary degree of giving up sovereignty to ensure harmonisation of policy and same economic planning to cane the dislocation that free trade will cause. That is very important indeed. Whether we are in the Common Market or not, substantial Changes are going to be needed in British industry, involving they contraction of some of our industries and the expansion of others.
Some of us believe that this change in British industry—the expansion of some, the contraction of others, the development of new products and the expansion of research and development—us not, in fact, taking place fast enough. Harmonisation of trade policies may very well take place, according to the latest information that we have, through the new Organisation for European Cooperation and Development which, I understand, is now 'empowered to deal with trade questions.
This mere harmonisation of trade questions is not enough if we are to avoid the dislocations which would undoubtedly occur in going in when tariff barriers are removed. We have to play some pant in the planning of the economic and industrial policy which undoubtedly is going on in Europe. It is for this reason that we should indicate our willingness to sign the Rome Treaty under the conditions which exist in the Treaty by which we are able to renegotiate some parts of it.
I want to say something about Commonwealth preference and the fears expressed, particularly by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) about the effect on underdeveloped areas of the abolition of Commonwealth preferences and so forth. For the very reason that the Community is a political conception, there is a very strong feeling in the Community, among

a large number of its members, of the responsibilities of Europe to the underdeveloped countries. I do not believe that it would be impossible for us and the people at present in the leadership of the Community to negotiate arrangements which would ensure that the underdeveloped countries, including the countries that are commodity producers in the Commonwealth, continue to benefit from the expansion of European trade. It would be the negation of everything that they say that they stand for if, in admitting Britain, they were to make it more difficult for commodity 'producers to maintain their exports. I do not think that this is a justifiable fear.
I believe that the reason why we do not have to be so fearful about our approach to the Community—and there both Front Benches today seem to me to be fearful, although I must admit that the Government have become less so—is very largely the pragmatic nature of the treaty to which the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West referred. This applies not only to the renegotiability of the Treaty for new members to enter, but also, for instance, in regard to the treatment of agricultural products. I do not see why we should fear to enter on a course of action in which we would, in each of the steps thereafter taken, exert our own influence. If we are not there, we cannot exert any influence on those steps, but if we are there, we undoubtedly can. I agree that there are difficulties because of our having formed the free trade area, but the difficulties supposed to exist for neutrals have been considerably exaggerated. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) had to say on that.
We undoubtedly have a part to play in Europe and we are badly needed, particularly by the smaller countries and by the political parties left of centre, who would be glad to see Britain in. But we must not seem either to hold back developments in the Community, or to want to take the lead which, if it was ever ours to take, we have already thrown away. We cannot go in saying, "We are coming in to take the lead". If we go in at all, it will have to be on equal terms.
Meanwhile, in the interval during which we are waiting, or negotiating, or finding a favourable opportunity, as the


hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) put it, to enter the Common Market, we must put our own economic house in order by developing the rate of expansion and technical change in our industry so that, when the time comes, it is able to face the European industries on equal terms, which it is hardly able to do at present.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Mr. Healey.

Mr. Holt: On a point of order. As you are aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you have been unable to call many hon. Members who wished to speak in the debate. There has been no spokesman from the Liberal Party. As the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill lasted until half-past four, and so delayed our proceedings, is there any reason why this debate should not go on until after ten o'clock, so that other hon. Members may speak?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is aware that this debate is taking place on a Motion which is not exempted business. I have no power to extend the debate.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: During the debate, I could not help reflecting on the slogans with which the Prime Minister began his Administration three and a half years ago. You will remember, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that his slogans then were "Europe" and "Power". By that, he meant close unity between Britain and the Continent of Europe and a great strengthening of Britain's atomic power, both militarily and industrially.
We all know what happened to the power slogan—the abandonment of the truly independent British deterrent and the slashing of the industrial atomic power programme. That part of the slogan lies in ruins. As for unity with Europe, it is a melancholy fact that our relations with our main Continental neighbours are worse today than they have ever been in peace-time history.
I regret that when he opened the debate the Foreign Secretary spent so little time on the political side of our relations with Europe, because the Motion puts political unity with Europe

before even economic unity with Europe. I could not help thinking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had already taken a Treasury brief and was making a speech very different from that which he would have given a week ago. Incidentally, let me wish him well in his new office, if, indeed, he is moving to a new office, although I shall very much regret losing him as a target. I hope that the Prime Minister will provide us with another target in this House.
I regret that the debate generally has focussed so exclusively on the economic division between the European Free Trade Association countries and the Six in the Common Market, because, although the economic split between Britain and the Continent symbolises the bad state of our relations, I do not believe that it is its cause. The failure of our economic relations with the Continent is largely due to a break-down in our political relations with the Continent which preceded it.
The crucial failure of Her Majesty's Government during the last few years has been their refusal to recognise the impact of their political and military decisions on the rest of their policy towards Western Europe. The party opposite has always been proud to represent Britain as a nation of shopkeepers and there is no doubt that it has given an extraordinary priority during negotiations with the Continent over the last few years to the question of our economic association with Europe. But let us not forget that President de Gaulle, who is the Head of State of our nearest and most important European neighbour, regards commercial and economic questions as essentially problems for the quartermasters—"the servants can deal with that". He regards political questions as infinitely more important.
I do not think that one would be doing justice to the complexity of our relations with the Continent if one ignored the effect on our relations with our neighbours of some of our political decisions over the last few years. I admit at the outset that some of the political decisions we took, and some of the policies we pursued, were right, even though they conflicted with good relations with the Continent.
To take one example mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for


Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), there is no do Mt that the general trend of the Government's foreign policy in relation to the Soviet Union and to a settlement with the Communist Powers has consistently worked against the achievement of good relations with the Continent. Th., Continent generally was utterly opposed to the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow last year. It was opposed to his proposal for a Summit Conference, and I think that the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) was speaking the truth when, during the last foreign affairs debate, he said that if the Government were really putting relations with Europe first they would have to drop the line which they had been taking in their relations with Russia in the last few years.
We on this side of the House would not wish the Government to put relations with Western Europe first if that meant dropping the extremely valuable initiative which they have taken in the last few years, and which we hope they wilt continue to take, to achieve some agreement with the Soviet Union and other Communist Powers.
I think that the same can, and must, be said of British policy in Asia and Africa. There is no doubt, again, that the policy which this Government have pursued with the support of the Opposition, in relation to the Asian countries, the Middle East and Africa has seriously damaged relations with some of our Continental neighbours, particularly France. I do not think that anybody who visited Paris in the early months of 1957 can deny that, when the Government rightly abandoned the insane policy that they had been pursuing during the Suez affair, that abandonment was looked on by the French Government as a betrayal, and the Government's attempt to establish better relations with the Arab countries generally has consistently worked against good relations with France.
There is no doubt that probably the most damaging act by the present Government, so far as Europe is concerned, is an act which we in London have forgotten—though they in Paris, I think, will never forget—namely, our collaboration with the American Government in selling arms to the Tunisian Government. There is no doubt that at

the present time many leading Continental politicians and statesmen believe that the general trend of our policy on the African Continent has been gravely and unnecessarily embarrassing to them. This, I think, is felt by the Belgians. It is certainly felt by the French, but again I say that none of us on this side of the House would wish us to seek good relations with the European Continent if that meant abandoning the general line of policy which the Government have been pursuing, with our support, in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Mr. Mulley: This is very interesting, but would my hon. Friend explain, for the benefit of the simple-minded amongst us, why, if we were associated with Europe, it would not still be possible to pursue these broad lines he has mentioned?

Mr. Healey: The point I am making—and I shall develop it in a moment—is that one of the reasons why we have found it impossible to reach agreement with the French Government on the question of the Free Trade Area is the policy which we have pursued towards the Communist bloc and Africa. If my hon. Friend is ignorant of this fact, he is being altogether too simple. There is no doubt that President de Gaulle's attitude towards Britain on the European question in the last few years has been determined to a large extent by our policies being different from those of France regarding the Soviet Union and the African and Asian countries, and I could quote hundreds of examples of statements by the French Government to that effect.
On the other hand, in my view and that of my hon. Friends, some of the decisions and policies followed by the Government which have destroyed the climate in which we could have achieved economic agreement with the Continent, have been absolutely wrong. These are decisions and policies which we could and should correct if we wish to achieve better relations with the Continent of Europe in other fields. The most important of these wrong policies and decisions was the decision taken by the Government at the beginning of 1957 to seek atomic independence within the Atlantic Alliance at the expense of our contribution to European defence and in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of our


agreement with the Continental Powers to keep four divisions, or the equivalent, on the Continent of Europe until the end of this century.
There is no doubt whatever that this attempt by Britain to achieve a special and exclusive status as a member of the nuclear club inside N.A.T.O. incited great resentment in France; while our withdrawal of troops from the N.A.T.O. Command was widely regarded in West Germany and the Low Countries as a betrayal of a formal promise which we had made. I think that the Continental countries must listen with rather a wry smile to the President of the Board of Trade when he accuses them of inventing a new doctrine called "the doctrine of non-existence of Europe" when in fact it had been the basis of Government policy for the last ten years. If not, why did the Government make nothing of the Western European Treaty Organisation? Why is it that, again and again, we took decisions contrary to the spirit, and in some cases almost contrary to the letter, of the agreement we made with the Six in 1954?
This was the political background in which the negotiations to try to create a Free Trade Area with the Continent took place. One must confess that it was an appallingly bad climate in which to negotiate and all the errors, some venial as I say and some unforgivable, made by the Government in the political field were compounded by a fundamental error of judgment, in my view, throughout the economic negotiations with the Continent, namely, that the Government have never recognised that the real dynamic force behind the Common Market is not commercial, not economic, but political. While there are, of course, many people on the Continent who do not approve this dynamic and do not have the same passion for union as, for example, Hallstein and Morjohn, the fact is that the people who want the Common Market, because it will lead to political union in Europe, are the people who have been running the show ever since the thing began; and on the whole their influence among the Six has been growing rather than declining as things have gone on.
Because the Government either failed to recognise this political dynamic or,

in recognising, actively opposed it, an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust towards Britain has been created on the Continent. A situation has now been reached in which almost any proposal made by Britain for closer relations with the Continent is looked upon as a devious device for wrecking the unity of the Six. This was the experience of the Minister of State when he made a tentative suggestion the other day at Paris that Britain might try to join Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community. Nothing proves my point more clearly than the fact that when the New York Times published an account of what the Prime Minister, was said to have said to Mr. Dillon there was no statesman or politician on the Continent of Europe who did not immediately accept this as an accurate account of the Prime Minister's view. Indeed, it is significant that the Prime Minister himself has never denied that he said these things.
A further mistake we made, for which there was no excuse whatever, after the collapse of the Free Trade negotiations, was failing to recognise that the type of approach we favoured was one which could not commend itself to the Six. I believe that the Government made a great mistake in leaving the negotiations in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade, who has never understood what hit him when the Free Trade Area collapsed. He has never understood the meaning of his defeat, but goes on day after day, week after week, making speeches which assume that everything could have been and should have been all right but that some extraordinary accident of fate made the negotiations collapse when they did collapse.
A beginning of improvement in the Government's policy depends on replacing this Bourbon of the Board of Trade by someone who will treat negotiations with Europe as primarily a political and not a commercial problem.

Mr. Maudling: As the hon. Member says that I keep saying certain things, will he quote what I have said?

Mr. Healey: I will quote the statement the right hon. Gentleman made to the Foreign Press Association, I think four weeks ago, which all of those to whom I talked said was exactly what he has been saying for the last five years.
One of the valuable things which has cone out of the debate today was the Foreign Secretary's very clear statement this afternoon that if we are to have better relations with the Continent in the economic field, we must recognise that the whole Free Trade Area conception is dead and that we cannot hope to get good relations on that basis. I only hope that some of my hon. Friends who have put forward variants of the Free Trade Association today, although usually describing them as joining the Common Market, will get this point bemuse, until this point is recognised, we shall never make progress.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Mr. Healey: No, I have already given way several times and I must get on with my speech.
The real issue which has come out very clearly in this debate is whether this country should join the Common Market or not.

Mr. Thorpe: Answer that one.

Mr. Healey: I am going to answer it. It is a very difficult decision because, fundamentally, a decision on whether or not to join the Common Market depends on an estimate of how the Common Market is likely to develop in the next few years, both in the economic and in the political fields. I do not believe any person in Europe can honestly put his hand on his heart today and say that he knows how it will develop. Inevitably a decision to join or not to join today must be based very largely on a gamble.
But two points of extreme importance have emerged from this debate. The first is that there is no longer anybody in this House who believes it inconceivable that we should join the Common Market. I hope that our Continental friends will take note of the fact that the sort of Pharisaism towards the Continent which governed the attitude of both partia—I admit this—towards European unity for so many years immediately after the war, is completely dead.
I believe that the attitude of responsible people in all parties in this country towards union with the Continent is completely different from what it was, say, ten years ago. The other interesting thing—

Mr. Thorpe: Why not go in now?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Member must wait for a moment. He has not sat in on the debate for a great time and he must be a little patient. The other thing which has emerged, and which is extremely interesting, is that no one in this debate thinks we can join the Common Market as it now stands, and no one thinks we can join the Common Market alone or without the agreement of our partners in the European Free Trade Association. Even the triumvirate from Sheffield, who made some extremely interesting contributions to the debate, finally admitted that, although they wanted to join the Common Market, they did not want to join it as it is; they wanted to negotiate various changes in it.
The question which we face at present in the House and in the country, therefore, is: should Her Majesty's Government now try to negotiate for changes in the Common Market Treaty which would allow Britain to join it—and that is the only relevant question which can be asked in terms of political realism. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton pointed out in his opening speech, a large number of economic changes are required in the Treaty of Rome in order to accommodate Britain's special interests in relation to agriculture and to our Commonwealth trade, and many of these changes are certain to be opposed by France and by other European countries for reasons of national interest which have nothing to do with the Six as such.
I leave that question on one side, because I believe that it might be possible to negotiate these changes, though perhaps not at the present time. The main problem which has arisen again and again in the debate is how far Britain can and need accept the political aims of the Six if she is to join the Rome Treaty. This, I confess, is not an easy question to answer. I have great sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) that in practice the Common Market is a very much more pragmatic affair than it is in theory.
Over the last fifteen years I have often felt that one of the basic difficulties between Britain and the Continent is that we look at Treaty commitments in


a different way. On the whole, for Britain a commitment made in a Treaty is a minimum from which we start, but for many of the Continental countries a commitment made in a Treaty is a maximum at which they aim. As the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) pointed out, there is a sincere difficulty for us in signing a Treaty with a mental reservation that we may not be able to carry it out, whereas for many Continental countries—and this is not a question of morality but simply a different national habit of mind—there is no difficulty about this, and it is understood that they sign a Treaty and then, if they find it difficult to carry it out, they raise reservations about it later. It seems to me that many of our difficulties with the Continent can be traced in the end to this fundamental difference in mental habits.
Nevertheless, I believe that we have here a serious issue. The people who are now dominating policy in the Commission in Brussels and in most of the countries in the Common Market want a total economic union as the end result of their efforts, and they want a total economic union, as laid down in the Treaty of Rome, mainly because they believe that it will lead to a total political union. We should be deceiving ourselves if we did not accept this as a starting point in deciding our policy.
As I tried to make clear in the early part of my speech, I do not think that Britain, at any rate now, could accept this sort of political integration, because I believe that to accept it would be inconsistent with our policies in relation to Russia, to Afro-Asia and to the Commonwealth generally. I believe that our policies towards Russia, towards Afro-Asia and towards the Commonwealth must still take priority over our policies towards Continental Europe, although I recognise that some of my hon. Friends disagree with me about that.
With all the earnestness at my command, I would say that it is no good starting negotiations now in the hope of defeating the integrationists inside the Six. I cannot help noticing that such respected organs of opinion as the Economist and even, to my surprise, the Observer want us to negotiate to get into the Common Market primarily in order

to defeat the people who are now running the Common Market. In my view, if we negotiated with this aim in view the negotiations would certainly break down and there would be an appalling deterioration in the atmosphere between Britain and the Continent as a result.
On the other hand, new chances for negotiation may open later. For example, in a few years' time those who are running the Six may feel confident enough about the general trend that they have set to risk negotiations to meet some of our needs. It is also perfectly possible that the countries in the Six may decide of themselves, before we start to negotiate with them, that their unity should take a form which Britain could accept. As has been said in this debate, President de Gaulle on the whole wants a form of unity which would be acceptable to Britain, although he does not want Britain to form part of that unity. Thirdly, it is also possible that the policies of the Six towards Russia, Afro-Asia and the Commonwealth may become more compatible with ours.
But one thing is certain at this moment, I believe, and that is that British opinion is not prepared to enter the Common Market on the basis of the Rome Treaty, and is still less prepared to accept the political objectives which those now running the Common Market have set themselves. I believe that it would be disastrous if any British Government committed the British people to joining the Common Market without first coming clean with them about what it would mean. Anyone who has read the Gallup Poll in today's News Chronicle can see what a tremendous job of education there is to be done there. I welcome any intelligent argument for joining the Common Market as a contribution to this educative progress, even though I am not myself at this time convinced by it.
If we decide that it is no good trying to negotiate our way into the Common Market now, what is to happen? Are the Government right in what they have been saying for the last three years—that there may be a terrible commercial split between Britain and the Continent, with appalling economic consequences, which may be followed by an even more


dangerous political split? Of course not. It is absolute nonsense.
One of the worst services done by the Government to the cause of European unity has been grossly to over-dramatise and exaggerate the consequences of not reaching agreement on these commercial issues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton said, the economic damage caused by the Common Market has been greatly exaggerated, and provided that we join the United States and G.A.T.T. in pressing for a low external tariff and a liberal trade policy, we shall have a great deal of support from the Commission in Brussels and from many European Governments, and the economic damage that we shall suffer will be literally negligible.
Is there going to be a terrible political split? Possibly. But if there is to be one between Britain and the Continent it is not likely to be the result of the Common Market. It will be because the leading Continental powers, France and Germany, have a different view about world policy from ourselves. After all, the Rome-Berlin axis did not depend upon a Common Market, nor does the Bonn-Paris axis at the present time. There is no doubt that the best way to avoid the political danger of failing to reach agreement on the Common Market is to strengthen political consultation and military inter-dependence in N.A.T.O. We can do this only if we in Britain put ourselves on the same level as the Continent, both militarily and diplomatically.
That means that we must cease trying to establish ourselves as an independent nuclear Power and simultaneously trying to prevent Continental countries from following our lead. We must build up out contribution to the shield forces in N.A.T.O. There is a strong case for trying to reorganise N.A.T.O.'s political machinery so that Continental countries car get consultations on the same informal basis as those Britain has had with the United States for years. Most important, we must co-operate with the Continent not only inside Europe but outside it as well.
In my view, the greatest political danger that might arise from the failure to solve our economic problems with the Continent lies outside Europe—in Africa. In the last few years we have already seen a dangerous gulf opening

between us and at least two Continental powers in Africa—between ourselves and France over Algeria, and between ourselves and Belgium over the Congo. There are very serious dangers if the Common Market countries carry through their plans of concentrating on economic development of their own overseas territories in Africa, without any integration or co-ordination with the economic policies followed by Britain in the contiguous parts of the African Continent.
I think that if we follow this line, none of the dangers that the Government have been so despairingly predicting for the last few years is likely to follow. If we accept the Common Market for what it is, as a major contribution to European unity and the strength of the West as a whole, and if we concentrate on trying to improve our relations with it and minimising the damage that it might cause us, by the method I have suggested, I do not think that we need fear exclusion. We may suffer some marginal economic disadvantages, but we will encounter no really serious political danger. And let us not forget that, after all, we are not just a nation of shopkeepers.
More important still, I believe that if we follow this sort of line we shall enormously increase the chances of a general settlement later, whether that settlement takes the form of the entry of Britain and the other members of E.F.T.A. into the Common Market, or the form of including the Common Market as a whole in some new combined European organisation.

9.32 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): There can be no doubt that this debate has fully measured up to the immense significance of the subject that we have been discussing. There can be no doubt that the speeches which have been made will be read and studied with the greatest interest throughout Western Europe and, indeed, throughout the Western world.
I think that it is very valuable on this occasion to have had, first, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to state the position of Her Majesty's Government, after much thought and careful reappraisal, and that it is important, also, to be able to send out from this House to the rest of the world a clear


message to the effect that on the basic interest of Britain and on the basic questions of policy there is no substantial disagreement on either side of the House. There are differing points of view and, no doubt, points of criticism, but, on the basic problem, I find an extraordinary measure of agreement.
That is not surprising, because we are talking about the future of our country in some of the most significant problems that we shall have to face in this generation. Britain is part of Europe, and Britain's interest is a united world. There may well have been a time, as our friends on the Continent sometimes say, when our interests were a divided world, but Europe then was the world. It is not the world now—there is Russia, the United States, China, as other great forces. There can be no doubt whatever that, in modern times, the interests of Britain are a united Europe and, therefore, anything that makes for European unity must be something that we support.
But we have a rôle beyond Europe that we must never forget. The British Commonwealth, with its population of more than 600 million, represents more than a quarter of the population of the entire globe. It is an association of people working together because they want to, not because they have to. It is an association of people of all colours, creeds and races, and an association within which, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, we get Africans and Asians and Europeans working together.
This is something of immense and lasting value to the entire free world, and those who say, as some do, that Britain cannot be part both of Europe and of the Commonwealth—that we must choose between the two—are trying to force us towards a choice that is not only contrary to our interests, but is contrary to the interests of the whole Western World. Who will suffer if we are members both of the Commonwealth and of Western Europe? We will certainly be prepared to pay in full for our membership of both associations. I would have thought that it must be to the general advantage if we have our position both in the Commonwealth and in Western Europe.
Of course, there are suspicions. There are suspicions in Europe of Britain. There are suspicions in this country of the motives of a Conservative Government, with their background of Commonwealth policy—people who do not believe in Commonwealth preference. These old suspicions die hard, but we must unite in this House to kill them, because unless we kill these suspicions of British policy we shall not gain the national objectives that we all have in mind.
Britain, I would repeat, is part of Europe. Britain, the Commonwealth and our European neighbours are all part of the free world, and only the enemies of the free world can possibly gain from a failure of our various countreis to unite and work together. It follows, therefore, that with the intimate connection now between economic and political matters, so stressed in the speeches from the Front Bench opposite, we must find an economic system that binds Britain to Europe without destroying our Commonwealth ties. That is 'the fundamental problem.
It must also be consistent with the G.A.T.T. I say this in reply to my hon. Friend the Member far Wembley, South (Mr. Russell). The G.A.T.T. is certainly not perfect, but until we find something better we would be well advised to adhere to the G.A.T.T. system which provides a system of international trade rules of tremendous value. I would add that the Commonwealth as a whole attaches particular importance to the G.A.T.T. system. I know of no country which adheres more vigorously to the G.A.T.T. than Canada; and we would be very unwise if we departed from the G.A.T.T. system until we saw something better to put in its place.
It is not impossible to find within the G.A.T.T. an economic system that binds us to Europe without destroying our Commonwealth ties; and indeed, through the O.E.E.C. that is precisely what we have seen developing. With the signing of the Treaty of Rome new possibilities emerged, and also new dangers—new possibilities, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, of greater political cohesion and greater economic strength among our European neighbours—things which, of course, we should welcome. At the same time,


there was and there still remains a danger of division in Europe unless some system can be found that covers the Six.
I think that the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) rather underwrote, at the end of his speech, not the immediate dangers of division in economic terms but the growing dangers unless this breach can be healed. There are very good reasons why other countries should not sign the Treaty of Rome, and they all stem from the basic concept of the, Treaty, namely, a common policy reached by a common decision and carried out by common institutions. For some of our friends in E.F.T.A. there are constitutional problems which were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman earlier. Also, some of them feel that within a federal system they, as small countries, would not be able to protect their interests as well as we, as a great country, could, and that is a very natural point of view.
For us particularly there are the problems of agriculture and of the Commonwealth. Whatever might happen, if we signed the Treaty of Rome, whatever the ultimate fate of our agricultural producers or, indeed, our agricultural consumers, the fundamental fact is that we should no longer control our own national agricultural policy. It would become part of a common European agricultural policy, and that would mean a fundamental departure from the existing system of agricultural support. Of course, it is particularly in the matter of agriculture that the Commonwealth is affected. If we take the common tariff of the Six and add the common agricultural policy, there will be a fundamental difference in the position of the Commonwealth in the United Kingdom market.
I was asked about the position of the Commonwealth countries. I can say that they have always recognised the importance of a united Europe and the difficulties and dangers involved for the United Kingdom and, indeed, for them as well in a division of Western Europe. Also, they have always relied on the promise that we have given them time and time again that we would maintain their position in our market for their foodstuffs, drink and tobacco. Of course, signing the Treaty of Rome would involve putting that policy of preference

completely on its head and giving preference to Europe instead. Therefore, although the Commonwealth countries have been and remain extremely helpful, sympathetic and understanding of our difficulties, they have always felt that they could rely on the undertaking that we have given them.
Of course, the other particular difficulty which must not be underestimated is that it is provided in the Treaty of Rome that, after the transitional period, negotiations on relations with third countries should be carried out on a common basis by the Commission. This would mean, in effect, that our commercial negotiations with the Commonwealth would be carried out by the Commission. It would mean accepting a system in which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom could no longer sign a trade agreement with the Government of Australia or of Canada. That is a formidable step to contemplate not merely in its commercial but in its political consequences.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that we agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. Could he add one word to the very helpful statement he has just made about the Commonwealth? Can he say that any of the self-governing territories of the Commonwealth have expressed any interest in the possibility of themselves actually joining the Economic Community with Britain?

Mr. Maudling: I have never heard that expressed. Of course, the point is that the Community wishes to have free trade in industrial products and to protect its foodstuffs, and the independent Commonwealth wishes to have free trade in foodstuffs and to protect its industry. There is not, therefore, very much basis for agreement there.
It must be recognised, as it was from the start, that the Treaty of Rome is not universally acceptable to all the countries of Western Europe. It was for that reason that we started negotiations on a free trade area. I shall not go back on that. Let us remember, however, that this was not a British plot, as people sometimes suggest. It was an idea thought up in O.E.E.C., mentioned in the Spaak Report, agreed to unanimously by the O.E.E.C. nations and the French and German Governments, before the signature of the Treaty of Rome, said that


they would then proceed immediately to negotiate with us a free trade area. Whatever may be said about the conduct of the negotiations, the fact is that we entered upon them with the united agreement of the whole of Western Europe.
I believe, that, if those negotiations had succeeded, we could have had a single European economic system. It would not have involved the Six in any derogation from their ideas of development and it would not have involved us in any derogation from our Commonwealth responsibilities. I believe that it is a tragedy that those negotiations failed, but they did. I agree that it is a matter of the past. After they failed, we had to do something to avoid a drift in Europe, and we supported the idea of the E.F.T.A.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked what our motives were. They were, I think, three. First, we had in mind the trade expansion which would emerge from forming this group of 90 million people with their relatively high standards of living and high levels of imports. Secondly, we wanted to prevent the further disintegration or fragmentation of the Western European economy. Thirdly, we wanted to provide a more practical basis for future negotiations with the Six. Having had some experience of negotiations in which there are 17 independent countries all negotiating about a highly complex matter of economics, I must say that I can see considerable advantage in negotiations carried out between two organised groups.
In all those ways, we believe that E.F.T.A. will stand on its own feet as a strong and progressive economic group which will bring trade benefits to all its members, and more than trade benefits in that it will lead to closer co-ordination of economic, social and other policies as a natural matter of evolution and not as something superimposed in a treaty, the actual wording of which no one will, in fact, fully observe. Secondly, as I say, we believed that it would prevent further disintegration, and, thirdly, we thought that it would provide a base for further negotiations with the Six.
One other thing, I think, was achieved by the signature of the Treaty of

Stockholm. It proved that it is possible, with good will all round, to find an economic system whereby Britain can be both a partner in a European economic association and retain the Commonwealth system—the system of Commonwealth duty-free entry and all the Commonwealth trading pattern to which we attach so much importance. I think that there is great importance in proving that that can be done.
The main economic problems of our Commonwealth system with regard to Europe concern the question of duty-free entry. But this we have solved in the Treaty of Stockholm, so far as manufactures, semi-finished goods and raw materials are concerned, by the use of certificates of origin, a system we have known, tried and proved over twenty-five years or more in the Commonwealth. Secondly, we have shown that the problem of agriculture is soluble. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), I think rightly, remarked that Denmark was the greatest agricultural problem for us and that if we can solve that within E.F.T.A. surely we can solve it in negotiation with the Six. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right. One of the values of the Stockholm Treaty is that it has proved, both with regard to the Commonwealth and agriculture, that, given good will and a desire to compromise and negotiate on both sides, these problems are not by any means incapable of solution.
The Stockholm Treaty and E.F.T.A. are now a fundamental part of British policy. I particularly welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about maintaining E.F.T.A. We signed this Treaty believing, as we do, that it would be of benefit to us and to our colleagues and to the whole of Western Europe. Having signed the Treaty, we intend to carry it out in the letter and in the spirit. It is and will remain a fundamental part of our foreign policy in all these matters. I believe that its existence will contribute to the possibilities of a pan-European solution, not because it is aimed as a threat or lever or anything of that kind—it is not—but because it is another organised group which can negotiate on a rational basis with the Six for a lasting solution.

Mr. Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House any evidence of


what he has just said, that the Six have the slightest interest in negotiating with the Seven, because the most that we have been able to find out about the views on the Continent is that the Six are not concerned about an association with anyone outside the Six? The whole of their thoughts and efforts are concentrated on building up the Six.

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I will come to that point.
The position now is that we have an urgent need for a European system which will prevent division and will not involve for the Six, for the Seven or for anyone else problems of insuperable difficulty. I believe that a solution of this kind can be found. The danger is that we shall get involved too much in arguments of words and of theology. I think that the argument of whether one is to go in or to stay out is an empty and meaningless one. The point is that we want a European system, and what we are concerned with is the realities of that system and not the name which we give to it. If we get involved in this argument we may find ourselves led into byways which will not be profitable to anyone.
In the debate I found a considerable measure of agreement on this point. So far as I know, no one has advocated that we should sign the Treaty of Rome. I do not believe that anyone on either side of the House has spoken, or would speak, in favour of signing the Treaty of Rome as it stands. No one is advocating joining the Common Market as it is. We all want to join something. We want something different, something which takes account of the difficulties of ourselves and of our allies in E.F.T.A. What we call it is not really important.
I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) favoured a close association. That seems to me a very reasonable possibility.

Mr. Mulley: I referred to an associate membership which recognises the political existence of the Common Market and our adherence to it. The only reason why I would not say join now is E.F.T.A.

Mr. Maudling: That is what I said the hon. Gentleman said—a close association. I was saying that it was a very good idea.
Reference has been made to the possibility that the Six, as a group, might join the Seven. Surely this is very much worth considering, because it is not quite the same thing as the original Free Trade Area. There was the suspicion in the Free Trade Area that the Six countries would be in as individual units. That was something to which many of them strongly objected. An association which brings in the Six as a single group is a quite different concept. Whether it would be acceptable to them, I do not know. Certainly, it seems the sort of possibility that is worth examining.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) asked two pertinent questions. He asked whether, if we cannot join the Common Market—the Treaty of Rome—as it stands, we could not join a common market. The answer is, "Certainly". Our objection is not to the concept of a common market within the definition of G.A.T.T. Our objection is to the particular form taken in the Treaty of Rome. That goes not only for us, but for our associates in E.F.T.A.
My hon. Friend referred to the recent well-known broadcast by President de Gaulle. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said in this House, we would certainly be willing to enter into negotiations with the Six on the basis of the principles outlined in the President's broadcast. I do not see how we can go further than that. Our great problem is to start negotiation about the long-term problem, but we cannot do that until the Six feel that the time is ripe. I am not entering into the reasons why they feel that the moment is not ripe. They are perfectly entitled to their reasons, as we are to ours, and we would not criticise them. There must, however, be two sides to a negotiation.
We, the Seven, have said on more than one occasion that we are ready and anxious to start negotiations to try to find a long-term solution. We are not starting from a bigoted or rigid position. We are willing to recognise negotiation and the process of concession on both sides. That is the process we want to start. Whether it be close association, a common market, something on the basis of President de Gaulle's broadcast or any of these things, we are ready and willing as soon as possible to start negotiations with the Six.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The right hon. Gentleman keeps on saying—and in one sense I am glad to hear him—that he is ready to negotiate. Will he state that he wants to negotiate and will he ask for a date upon which the negotiations can begin?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. and learned Member has not followed these matters. We have done both of those things. At the last meeting of the Trade Committee in Paris, on 9th June, we wanted to negotiate, but the Six told us that they were not prepared to do so. It is still on the agenda of the next meeting of the Trade Committee. Again, we shall say that we want to negotiate.
It must be clear that the British Government have said this time and again. I am not criticising, blaming or objecting. I am accepting the fact, as the House must accept the fact. One cannot start negotiation until there are two parties to it. We are willing, ready and anxious to start negotiation on any one of these bases with the object not of trying to win, not of trying to establish prestige or arguing status or who joins wham, but merely with the object of trying to get a rational, lasting European solution that meets our basic interests as well as the interests of the Six. After this debate today, I believe that that is the view of the entire House of Commons.
In the meantime, until these negotiations can begin by mutual consent, there are many things that we can and should do. First, we must build up the E.F.T.A. We must make more use of the trade opportunities that are opening there. We must think of the E.F.T.A. not merely in terms of trade, but in terms of collaboration over the whole range of economic and social interests, collaboration between independent States who work together because they want to work together and not because they are forced into any particular federal mould.
Secondly, we must work in the G.A.T.T., as has been said, to reduce the level of tariffs all round, because the lower the general level of tariffs, the less the damage that is done by discrimination. It is not a solution. It is a palliative, but a very useful palliative. Certainly, with that end in view, Her Majesty's Government will go into the forthcoming G.A.T.T. negotiations with

a desire to see a general reduction of tariffs and with a determination to offer substantial reductions in British industrial tariffs in exchange for proper concessions on the other side.
Thirdly, we must continue our very close consultation in all these matters with the Commonwealth. I assure the House, once again, that throughout all the discussions we have had in recent years of European economic problems we have kept our Commonwealth partners fully informed and we have consulted them throughout at every stage. Certainly, we shall continue to do so.
Forthly, we must work to create a political situation in which an economic negotiation can be fruitful. I have learned one thing in recent years, if nothing else, and that is that if we have not the right political atmosphere economic negotiation can never succeed. I do believe, per contra, that given the right political atmosphere an economic negotiation will not take very long to work out in practice.
I am sure that we must continue to work on this problem of the political atmosphere, and that we can do that by developing every possible European cooperative venture we can, ranging from commercial ventures on which there could be joint activities in, say, Britain, France and Germany, at the one end, to N.A.T.O. and the new O.E.C.D. at the other end, which we were discussing in Paris at the end of last week, which is a development of the O.E.E.C. and which, I hope, will lead to a strengthening of co-operation in economic policy and development policy both of the Western European countries and of the two great North Atlantic countries.
In all these things we must work patiently on to try to establish every scrap of European co-operation that we can. We must build this brick by brick. There is nothing dramatic which can be done. There are no gimmicks. We believe, on the whole, in using bricks to build, not to throw through glass windows. It is better to drop them than to throw them, but it is wiser to use them for building something up. This must be the path of commonsense, to say that we are willing and anxious to negotiate with the Six for something of lasting use.
Meantime, we build up E.F.T.A., continue to work in the G.A.T.T. for the general reduction of tariffs all round, continue our negotiations with the Commonwealth, and try to create the political atmosphere essential as the basis of a satisfactory economic settlement, because Europe cannot afford another failure in a major economic negotiation. We must build the right political situation first, which will be to the greatest possible extent of benefit to all, with our united political will to build up European institutions.
I am sure that it would be wrong to panic. I am sure that it would be utterly wrong to take long-term decisions of immense consequence to this country on the basis purely of short-term considerations. The problem is undoubtedly of the greatest seriousness, but it is soluble given the right political atmosphere. One thing which has burned itself into my mind throughout the last few years is the utter folly and tragedy of Western Europe

failing to solve these problems in the face of the dangers of the modern world. I believe that the folly and tragedy of failure is so obvious that we shall, in fact, succeed some time, sooner, I hope, but maybe later, in finding a solution. It is in the fundamental interests of all of us that it shall be found by patience, by good will, and by realistically facing all the problems, as, I believe, the House has faced them today.

Mr. Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no unanimity in the House on this matter and that there are a good many hon. Members who believe that the Government must say that they are prepared to enter the Common Market, and who intend to register that view tonight by dividing the House?

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 4.

Division No. 147.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Aitken, W. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hopkins, Alan


Allason, James
Dance, James
Hornby, R. P,


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Arbuthnot, John
Deedes, W. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Atkins, Humphrey
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Barber, Anthony
Doughty, Charles
Hughes Hallett, vice-Admiral John


Barter, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Duncan, Sir James
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Elliott, R. W.
Jackson, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Emery, Peter
James, David


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Janner, Barnett


Bidgood, John C.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Bingham, R. M.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Farr, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bishop, F. P.
Fernyhough, E.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Black, Sir Cyril
Finch, Harold
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Eric
Kershaw, Anthony


Bossom, Clive
Forrest, George
King, Dr. Horace


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kirk, Peter


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Gammans. Lady
Leavey, J, A.


Box, Donald
Gardner, Edward
Lee, Frederick, (Newton)


Braine, Bernard
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Brewis, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brooman, White, R.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lilley, F. J. P.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bryan, Paul
Goodhart, Philip
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bullard, Denys
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn) 
Gower, Raymond
Longbottom, Charles


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Grant, Rt. Hn. William (Woodside)
Longden, Gilbert


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Green, Alan
Loveys, Walter H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Channon, H. P. G.
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Chataway, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McLaren, Martin


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Collard, Richard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hay, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Cordle, John
Hayman, F. H.
Maddan, Martin


Corfield, F. V.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maginnis, John E.


Costain, A. P.
Healey, Denis
Maitland, Sir John


Coulson, J. M.
Hendry, Forbes
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Marten, Neil


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hiley, Joseph
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Cunningham, Knox
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Curran, Charles
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald




Mawby, Ray
Scott-Hopkins, James
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sharples, Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mills, Stratton
Shaw, M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Mitchison, G. R.
Shepherd, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Montgomery, Fergus
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Wainwright, Edwin


Neave, Airey
Smithers, Peter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Noble, Michael
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wall, Patrick


Nugent, Sir Richard
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Oliver, G. H.
Stodart, J. A.
Watts, James


Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Webster, David


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Whitelaw, William


Page, Graham
Studholme, Sir Henry
Whitlock, William


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Percival, Ian
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pike, Mitt Mervyn
Talbot, John E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Tapsell, Peter
Wise, A. R.


Pitt, Miss Edith
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pott, Percivall
Teeling, William
Woodhouse, CM.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple, John M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Woollam, John


Ramsden, James
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Worsley, Marcus


Rawlinson, Peter
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)



Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Peel.


Russell, Ronald
Turner, Colin





NOES


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Grimond, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Donnelly, Desmond
Thorpe, Jeremy
Mr. Wade and Mr. Holt.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the need for political and economic unity in Europe, and would welcome the conclusion of suitable arrangements to that end, satisfactory to all the Governments concerned.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (SUBMARINE CABLE SYSTEM)

Agreement, dated 20th July, 1960, between Her Majesty's Postmaster

General and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company for the provision and maintenance of a submarine telecommunication cable system between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, [copy laid before the House 20th July], approved. [Miss Pike.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (GRADUATED CONTRIBUTIONS)

10.11 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contributions) Regulations, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 921), dated 25th May, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st June, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the general convenience of the House if we extend this discussion to include the second Prayer:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Collection of Graduated Contributions) Regulations, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 922), dated 25th May, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st June, be annulled.

Mr. Ross: We are here dealing with two Statutory Instruments, two of a considerable batch which have come from the Ministry since the passing of the National Insurance Act, 1959. I am sorry that the Minister himself is not present, as I intended to remind him of a phrase which I well recollect his using abut ten years ago when he spoke of a vast flow of delegated legislation descending upon the bewildered people of this country. I am sure that the employers of this country are fairly well bewildered, for not a week passes without a leaflet, a pamphlet, a Regulation, a guide to a Regulation, a guide book, to see them through this veritable network which has been thrust upon them.
Although the Regulations are necessarily intricate—the two Instruments with which we are now dealing particularly so—they are very important and the House would do well to study them carefully, because it is by these Regulations that tremendous sums of money will be collected. What is involved is the annual collection of £250 million by 1966, £295 million by 1971, £350 million by 1976, and £390 million by 1981. Against those sums collected there will be paid out £15 million, £16 million, £35 million and £63 million respectively, so that one begins to see why there is a certain measure of controversy about the Act and the Regulations.
We now have only eight months to go before these provisions come into force and last week the Minister named the appointed day. He might well have called it the day of reckoning, with all that has to be done about assessments. The background is that, from the week of 6th April, 1961, all employees between the ages of 18 and 70–65 in the case of women who are not in receipt of retirement pension—who have not contracted out will be required to make graduated contributions.
The Act lays down that a contribution—a rather euphemistic description for something which cannot be withheld—of 4¼ per cent. each by employer and employee is to be paid on that part of an employee's remuneration which lies between £9 and £15 in any Income Tax week, although there are arrangements defined in the Regulations under which the graduation can be for not only a week but a multiple of a week, a month or a multiple of a month, or some such period.
The graduated contributions are to be collected—and we find this in other Regulations—through the P.A.Y.E. system in association with Income Tax, but whereas the tax is to be dealt with on an annual and cumulative basis, the graduated contribution is to be calculated on each regular pay, be it weekly, monthly, or what one will, taken separately. The basis of assessment and calculation is gross pay before deductions and irrespective of when that pay or emolument is given. The deduction is to be made in respect of the time it was paid.
Many of these Regulations spring from that basis. I am sure that many of the difficulties and the inevitable anomalies spring from that. No doubt the Minister will justify this on the basis of administrative simplicity and practicability, but that can be carried too far.
Whereas the Act lays down that there will be a graduated assessment of 4¼ per cent. of the emolument, Regulation 3. dealing with the calculation of graduated contributions, departs from that in the matter of calculation and it is only 4¼ per cent. broadly. There is no precision here. For administrative purposes, and convenience, the Minister departs straight away from the 4¼ per cent.
In a proviso, the Minister returns—for administrative convenience in respect of certain firms and the way in which they calculate their pay bills by computer—to precise calculations. It is strange that in a realm where arithmetical purity might have been expected, lauded and demanded, we have this insistence on the imprecise, enforcement of the inexact, and a limit on precision.
All through the Regulations a decision is constantly being taken between administrative convenience and the fundamental basis of the scheme—which to my mind is that contributions should be a fixed percentage of earnings—and administrative convenience always wins. There is no doubt that this is a tremendous task in view of the variety of trades, the traditions within these trades, the method of payment of wages, and so on. I admit that, but here we are suiting our Regulations, bending them to particular trades, bending them to varying methods of payment, and fitting them in to suit the fundamental basis of collection, the P.A.Y.E. system, with the result that we have Regulations and provisos immediately allowing for departures from those Regulations. It shows that the Minister is conscious of the possibility of unfairness.
The overall effect of Regulations 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 is to render a scheme already suspect, because of its limited and discriminating nature, liable to anomalies and injustices which will perplex those who have to administer the scheme, not least the employers and the Inland Revenue. It will anger those who are called contributors, and will vitiate the fundamental principles of having a wage-related pension.
I feel that most of the injustices follow from accepting the P.A.Y.E. machinery and rejecting the P.A.Y.E. principle; and the limited application of a graduated principle to the narrow range of £9 to £15. If we take two people—we have the tables by which the calculations are to be made—who in four weeks earn the same amount, say £60, and one of those people earns £15 a week, at the maximum, that person will pay 5s. 1d. giving a total aggregated contribution of 20s. 4d. Suppose the other person, who may well be in the same firm, earns in the same four weeks first £16; then £14;

then £12 and then £18. His graduated contribution according to the total amount in aggregate, is not 20s. 4d. but 17s. 2d. When the employer's contribution is taken into account there is, in the first place, a total contribution of 40s. 8d. and in the second case 34s. 44., a difference of 6s. 4d. in the aggregate of contributions for the same emoluments.
The Minister may say that that is not much but this would happen week after week, month after month and year after year, in the lifetime of a man for thirty-seven years, and the accumulated effect is to create an injustice and an anomaly for an individual which to my mind cannot be defended solely on the basis of—

Sir Spencer Summers: On a point of order Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Unless I am mistaken, the points to which the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself now are inherent in the Act. We are here dealing with the Regulations giving effect to the principles laid down in the Act. If we are to debate the merits or otherwise of the principles inherent in the Act, we may go very much wider than I thought the debate was likely to go. May we have your guidance?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I was listening with attention to what the hon. Member was saying and I thought it was germane to the discussion.

Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) will pay attention to this. It is no wonder that the National Insurance Advisory Committee which was consulted in relation to these Regulations warned the Minister about limiting strictly the alternative methods that are in the Regulations. For instance, let us look at Regulation No. 7 which is in relation—it would be difficult to tell by reading it, were one able to understand it at all—to the change-over of graduation period where a man has been paid weekly and suddenly there is a change-over to being paid monthly. The Advisory Committee suggests that, as well as calculating this on a weekly basis in relation to a particular employer, the alternative method of calculating on a monthly basis should be promoted and


the Minister has agreed. What did the Committee say about that?
Adoption of the alternative method should, however, be limited, as with the 'precise' method of calculating the graduated contributions in Regulation No. 3 (3), to cases where the employer's pay arrangements are such that the standard method would be unduly difficult or inconvenient for him. This would prevent an employer from being able to choose between the two methods according to any difference in the contribution liability under them.
This is the very difference to which I have been addressing myself and this difference of contribution is there in Regulation 3 and Regulation 7. I am perfectly sure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that.
Here we have the ironic position that the fairest way of taking the longest period and evening out the bumps—to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to in Committee and pleaded with the Ministers to look into when the regulations were framed—is strictly limited, because it might pay the employer and the employee to have it calculated in this way.
This leads right on to Regulation 11 and the possibility of manipulating the pay procedures, which is recognised by the Minister. He takes power to prevent that. It is a very wide power to give a Minister and, in the language which is used here, it is one which I find myself, of necessity, asking how he is to use it. The Minister accepts abnormality and variation between one industry and another, but he will not accept it within an industry. The Minister will need to recollect that abnormality starts somewhere. Everything that is normal in any industry was abnormal when first introduced but it has come to be accepted. Does he think that there will be a freezing of methods of payment inside an industry, or that he will close his eyes to the introduction of any new forms of, say, bonus or anything else?
The difficulty is that the Regulation is an arbitrary one. The Minister will decide, but it does not say whether he will refer the matter of any abnormality to any committee. There is nothing in the Act nor in the Regulations which gives anyone a right of appeal against such a decision. When we remember that the Minister takes power to go right back to the Income Tax year before this was decided, we see that there is the

retrospective claim. I should have thought that it would have interested hon. Members opposite, who are interested in retrospective legislation. How that is to be done has to be answered.
Regulation 5 must be a great disappointment to the hon. Member for Aylesbury. That Regulation deals with something which troubled the Standing Committee for a considerable length of time. I had not the privilege of being a member of the Committee, but I have taken the trouble to read the OFFICIAL REPORT and the comments of everyone concerned about the treatment of bonuses. In Committee, the Minister was urged to take steps by regulation or somehow to spread irregular payments over a longer period than the nay period. The hon. Member for Aylesbury, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) joined in the request to the Minister to remember the fundamental basis, that if we wanted a graduated pension scheme properly wage-related we must try to ensure a proper spread-over in relation to the emoluments. That pressure was considerable and bipartisan. It had sympathetic support from the Advisory Committee.
I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury does not think that in this discussion we are going too wide. This is the importance of what he thought could be done and might have been achieved in part but which has not been achieved. The Advisory Committee sympathised with the point of view that the remuneration should be spread over the whole period in which it was earned but, as usual, found a practical difficulty being raised. But this practice of paying a bonus is widespread throughout industry, as I have found from discussions with people in industry. Special bonuses are paid at a certain time of the year in the cotton industry in Ayrshire. There are production bonuses. The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that clerks in the City received special bonuses at certain times.
If this calculation is to be made on the period in which the bonus is paid, be it monthly or weekly, then it means in many cases no addition to the build-up of graduated pension for these


people if they are already at or near the maximum of £15 a week, whereas if the calculation were spread over the year or over the two or three months in which the bonus was earned, they might be enabled to earn a maximum pension over that period.
The Advisory Committee said,
We greatly regret that the proposed treatment of bonuses and similar payments may result in lower contributions being paid than would otherwise be the case, with a corresponding adverse effect on the employee's eventual pension".
The hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston (Miss Pitt), then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, put off the insistent pleas of hon. Members by saying, "We have two years to think about it. We will see what can be done." Nothing has been done.
This problem applies the other way round, too. What of the employee in a shop, earning perhaps £6 a week? He does not come within the £9 to £15-a-week range, but at Christmas he may receive a special payment of £6 which immediately brings his pay for the week up to £12; and immediately he and the employer have to pay a contribution, probably the only contribution in the year. His contribution is 2s. 8d., and with the employer's contribution it totals 5s. 4d. That will go through the administrative machine, be entered on a tax deduction card, be recorded by the Inland Revenue Department and be taken in one of the pantechnicons, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) knows, to the Ministry. A specially punched card will be fed into the new and expensive Emid computer which the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance has just purchased. It will remain recorded there for time immemorial, but nothing from it will ever descend by way of benefit to the person who paid it—all because of this failure to spread the emoluments properly. The whole operation is fantastic from that point of view, too. Instead of being lost in the limbo of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, this contribution should have been wiped out.
Regulation 6 deals with the aggregation of payments in separate employ

ments under the same employer. It states that,
Payments in any employment shall not be aggregated with payments in any other employment under the same employer if
(a) such aggregation is not reasonably practicable because—
(i) any of the employments is of a casual nature…".
Who will decide whether it is reasonably practicable? The Inland Revenue? The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance? The Minister? If they cannot do that, what about people in casual employment? This is vague.
Then I come to Regulation 7, which is of incredible complexity. Here those masters of Parliamentary mystification, the Parliamentary draftsmen, have surpassed themselves. Have they ever read the strictures on the Ministry by a young Tory M.P. when in opposition about ten years ago? He was addicted to Parliamentary intercession night after night, and it then rendered him a critical authority—not a very loved one—on Statutory Instruments and Regulations. He said that in making regulations the Ministry must realise that, under powers delegated from this House, it was making the law of the land, and it brought that law into contempt when it made it incomprehensible.
That M.P. is now the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and yet he was responsible for inflicting Regulation 7 upon this House. It is so complicated that I think that perhaps he drafted it himself. Yet it is an important Regulation, for it deals with the question of the change-over from weekly to monthly payments. But for length, complexity and obscurity, it is an absolute model of what should be avoided.
In Regulation 9 there is a point which I should like cleared up. It deals with the annual maximum in relation to those who have two employments. They have to be assessed on each, but in aggregate they must not pay more than £13 10s. and anything above that, according to the Act, has to be treated as having been paid in error. That is what the Act says, but it is not what the Regulation says. The Regulation says that it will be treated as paid in error only if it is over £14. I do not know where the Minister gets the power to do that. I am not a


lawyer, but I have sufficient experience of Acts of Parliament and Regulations to want to know where the Minister gets the power to lay down that he will not pay back the excess of the prescribed amount, which is £13 10s.
This applies not only to the person who is ordinarily in two employments and paying through both, but also to a person one of whose employments is contracted-out employment and who is net allowed, or is not supposed, to pay more than a maximum—in other words it must be refunded to him. But it will be refunded to him in excess of £14 only—not in excess of the maximum with which he is credited. The Minister should have a look at the legality of what he is doing here.
Another complexity is disregarded payments. What do we get here in relation to holiday schemes? We find that some are in the scheme and some out. Some profit-sharing bonuses are in, and some are out. Some are out only if two payments are made. Why only two? Perhaps we can have an explanation.
Finally, there is the Minister's power in connection with abnormal payments, and I have already referred to that. Why is there no refund to the employer? Refunds are to be made only to the employee. If they are not made to the employer, are they credited to the benefit of the employee? It would be interesting to know.
Statutory Instrument No. 922 deals with, and builds up the gigantic piece of machinery for the collection of the contributions. There is a dual liability in regard to the contributions—that of the employer and that of the employee—but for the whole administration of collection, or handing over, of accounting or reporting, of recovering and everything else, there is one single liability, and that liability is on the employers—a million of them. They must be wondering what on earth they did to deserve this—and the answer is simple; they voted Tory. This Measure was on the Statute Book at the last election.
F or every single employer this tremendous build up means additional work every week—and not only in relation to those who are in the scheme. It will be seen from the Regulations

that it applies to people outside the scheme as well. Regulation 5 asks for returns of those in non-participating employment, and the Minister takes powers to require an employer at any time to furnish information about those people. There is a comprehensive power to ask for returns and all the rest of it in relation to about 24 million people.
How can it be justified? I was reading an article in a business periodical just the other day, headed: "Is It Worth It?" It is little wonder that they speak of Joe Bloggs, in order to meet whose graduated contributions they have to undertake all this work every week. Then there are these payments to the Inland Revenue, trouble about recovery—and unless they act quickly, if they leave it until time has run into the next year, they will not get any over-payment recovery.
There are the troubles about the pay accounting system. For many people, it means new machinery, for others, the adaptation of their present machinery—a fantastic business. And for those with the more expensive types of pay accounting, it means supplying their own forms—and supplying them in duplicate. That means 5 million extra pieces of paper. There is all this gigantic build up for this miserable pension provision under which Joe Bloggs, aged 40 next year, with a present wage of £12 a week but who, when he is 50, will be earning £15 a week, will get, at age 65, an extra 17s. 6d. on his £2 10s.—less than he would get today under the supplement to National Assistance.
These Regulations and all this work have to be justified. The one thing by which it cannot be justified is the eventual return in the form of pension. It can be justified, and this is the truth, only in relation to the figures I quoted at the start. In collecting £250 million by a discriminatory tax and paying out £15 million, the beneficiary is not the employer and it is not the employee; the beneficiary is the Treasury.

10.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has given us to discuss these Regulations, but I must confess that during


the course of his speech I could not make up my mind whether he was complaining about their complexity or endeavouring, by his various suggestions, to make them even more complicated than they are in their present form. I accept that they are complicated at first sight, but the hon. Member knows that any pension scheme, with the great variety of methods of payment that are operative in this country, is bound to have its complications.
The two Statutory Instruments, the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contributions) Regulations, 1960, and the National Insurance (Collection of Graduated Contributions) Regulations, 1960, were, as the hon. Gentleman said, laid before Parliament on 1st June and they stem from the National Insurance Act, 1959. I agree with him about the very great importance of these Regulations, which are really the spine of the whole graduated contributions scheme.
These Regulations were referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which includes representatives of employers and employees. As is the normal practice, the Committee made public the broad effect of the Regulations through national and provincial newspapers, through insurance and trade union journals, and to many trade and voluntary organisations. It sent copies of the draft Regulations, with the Press notice, to various interested organisations, including the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress. It received and considered the various representations made.
These Regulations have been considered and approved by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which recommended certain amendments that my right hon. Friend has accepted. In their legal terms I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's point that the Regulations are complicated. But there will be an explanatory guide for the benefit of employers and others interested, and I hope that tonight's debate will perhaps clear up some of the objections and reservations that have been made. The guide will be available well before the operation of the scheme in April.
First, may I deal with the Assessment Regulations. As the hon. Gentleman

said, in general the scheme applies to employees over the age of 18 who are insured in Class I. Graduated contributions will not, however, be paid for employees over 70–65 for women—or those between 65 and 70 60 and 65 for women—who have retired from regular employment. Employees within the liable age range may, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, be contracted out as members of an approved occupational scheme.
The rate of 4¼ per cent. as the graduated contribution is laid down in the Act. It is payable on such part of the employee's remuneration paid in any Income Tax week, regardless of when it was earned, as lies between £9 and £15, or between the equivalent amounts for remuneration not paid weekly—in the case of monthly payments, the limits are £39 and £65. The hon. Member appears to want to make it even more complicated.
To make the operation more simple, and to make the scheme tie up with the P.A.Y.E. scheme, graduated contributions will be calculated on pay received when it is received and taken at that point on its own. No adjustment has subsequently to be made.
The hon. Gentleman protested somewhat vigorously about the table of bands of pay on which these contributions are to be assessed. The Regulations provide a scale of graduated contributions payable at different levels of pay at 5s. intervals between £9 and £15. As the hon. Member rightly said, there is provision for employers using pay machinery who cannot apply the contribution tables to permit them to use the alternative method of calculating the exact percentage to the nearest 1d.
In one breath the hon. Member says that the Regulations are too complicated, and in the next breath he complains that there are not enough bands, and that every 1d. or 6d. or 1s. should be taken into account. Does he really suggest that, instead of there being 25 bands of pay which the computers or bookkeepers doing the P.A.Y.E. and the graduated contributions each week will have to deal with, they should do it penny by penny? That would mean 1,440 bands of payment, if my arithmetic is correct. If he really means what he suggested a few minutes ago—a precise calculation down to the last decimal point or farthing—


he is asking for 1,440 bands for the unfortunate computers or bookkeepers to deal with, not 25 5s. bands, as in the scheme for weekly payment.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It is no more difficult if one has the tables.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I suggest that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock was trying to make the Regulations more diffcult rather than less.

Mr. Ross: Not at all.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The Regulations provide also, of course, for calculating the graduated contributions on remuneration paid at other than regular weekly intervals, and they enable refunds to be made to employers with more than one employment if their graduated contributions in a tax year amount to £14 or more.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady said "employers". I think that she meant "employees".

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am obliged. I should have said "employees". The contributions of employers are not refunded.

Mr. Ross: Why not?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: For the contributions from employers, the position is very similar, if I may say so, to that where, if a person no longer qualifies to pay contributions if he is over 70 and in employment, the contributions still fall to be paid by the employer.

Mr. George Lawson: This is very different. We are dealing there with a basic pension where the Government themselves make a substantial contribution. There is no Government contribution whatever in this case towards the graduated pension. In fact, the Government are taking this money to pay the basic pension. It seems to me to be very unfair that, whereas an employee has his excess contribution returned to him, the employer has no such return. Is that not very unfair?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I accept that this is a difficult point. The fact remains that, since this will, in the main, apply wt ere a man has two separate employers, one would have to decide between them. Where a man has two separate

employers, the result would be that one employer would be making his contribution to the graduated scheme and the other would escape. It would be extremely difficult to adjudicate between two separate employers, but it is right that the employee should pay only the required sum and should be due for a refund if he pays over the £14. It certainly is not justifiable, on the other hand, that one employer should escape his liability for an employee—

Mr. Lawson: If a person has two employers, he will be treated, and the employers will be treated, as if that person were working solely with each. If, in fact, the money he is receiving from both employers brings him within the category of those having to pay, then both employers will have to pay their share towards his contribution. Subsequently, the employee can recover what has been paid in excess, but the employers will not recover anything. Is that fair?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: This point was debated at length on the Bill, I think. There is the further difficulty which, I am sure, the hon. Member appreciates, that in many cases one employer will not know that the other exists and employs his employee. It is not beyond the knowledge of hon. Members that many people take an alternative job which they do not disclose to their basic or general employer.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: This is an important point and we should get it clear. In the majority of cases, despite what the right hon. Lady has said, it is known that an employee is employed also by somebody else. At present, with the ordinary flat-rate contribution, an employer knows that somebody else is employing one of his employees because he is paying a lower rate of contribution. In cases where the employer is putting a lower-priced stamp on a man's card because he is not making a deduction from the employee, and particularly in cases where an employee is in a contracted-out scheme in which he is fully covered and the employer with the contracted-out scheme does not have to make a payment every week on behalf of that employee to the State scheme, that employer will make only a flat-rate payment. Why should we penalise the other employer by making


him pay the full amount when the employer with the contracted-out scheme can get away with not doing so?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The employer with the contracted-out scheme will hardly be getting away with anything, because if this scheme is such that permission has been given by the Registrar for it to be contracted out, he will be making contributions comparable to those of the graduated scheme.
These Regulations, however, have been fully considered by N.I.A.C. The difficulties of assessing, as between one employer and another, any such rebate as might arise under the proposal of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock are such that it was considered that where refund would lie to the employee, it would not be returnable to the employer, who would be paying his normal contributions on the wages or salary paid to the employee at the given time, thus placing him in no worse position than any other employer employing any similarly-placed employee.

Mr. Ross: Leaving that point aside, can the hon. Lady say to whose benefit the unrefunded portion will go?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It goes into the general fund, the National Insurance Fund, in exactly the same way as the contributions from employers for people in employment over the age of 70 go, equally, into the Insurance Fund.
I quite agree that the Assessment Regulations, by virtue of the fact that they have to cover varying types of remuneration and payments at varying intervals, are somewhat complicated. In criticising, however, the details, which provide for the unusual few—many of the points raised by the hon. Member related to provisions which have been made to meet special, and certainly not universal, cases—we should not overlook the value of the basic provision for the many, which is quite straightforward if the hon. Member resists the temptation to make it sound far more complicated than it is.
If the wage or salary comes under P.A.Y.E., it counts for graduated contribution. In the vast majority of weekly and monthly payments, it will be simply that basic fact that if the wage or salary comes under P.A.Y.E., it counts for graduated contribution and it will be

easily calculated. Experienced trade union Members opposite will not need me to tell them of the many and varied complications of wage structures, with their overtime rates, bonuses, special allowances and the like.
We have gone as far as we thought practicable in making special provision for different types and intervals of payment. Some hon. Members complain that the Regulations are too complicated, but had we included every point of refinement, including some of those for which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked, we would have made them still more complicated. That would have led to a system that was unworkable or, at best, haphazard in its operation.
A good deal of the complexity of the Regulations is due to the provision of alternatives to fit employers' pay practices. Holiday pay is an example of this point. People who, perhaps, go from a big contract to another, and who have a stamp system, gradually build up over the period holiday pay drawn at the time. They have several employers, and it would not be possible to draw back from past employers the contributions which would have been paid on that holiday pay. Therefore, in the Regulations, as the hon. Member quite rightly says, an arrangement has been made to meet those rather complicated and individual holiday payment schemes.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. She has been most obliging through numerous interruptions. Would she leave the complexity of the matter for a moment and deal with the question of this spread of the remuneration to which my hon. Friend referred?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I hope that I shall cover all the points the hon. Member raised.
I have now got to the bonus question, the point of the spread. I think that the hon. Member did less than justice to the National Advisory Committee's comments on bonuses. I am sure that he would agree with me that N.I.A.C. is a very high-powered body. Its chairman and its members go very thoroughly into these matters. While he read out their expression of regret that bonuses could not be spread I noticed that he finished his quotation at the word


"pension." He quoted their regret that the proposed treatment of bonuses and similar payments may result in low contributions, but he left out this very telling sentence:
But we recognise the practical difficulties, and in the absence of a workable alternative we are unable to recommend any alteration in the Regulations on this point.
That, I think, is a comment which hon. Members on both sides of the House must treat with respect, coming from the source from which it does. I accept that bonus is a very difficult point.
Graduated contribution will be payable on bonus in the week or month in which it is paid. We accept that in some cases this method will mean that the: contributor will pay less in graduated contributions than if his bonus were spread over several wage periods. I ask hon. Members to consider the alternative. Let us suppose, as the hon. Member did, that bonus is paid at the end of the year. We cannot revise the contributions backwards over the 52 weeks in which that bonus was earned, and to spread it over a future employment period would immensely complicate the collection and completely destroy the simplicity of the straight 4¼ per cent. deduction from gross pay as received.
Further, if a man changed his job, he might not want details of his past bonuses to be passed on to ibis present employer, and certainly, if he changed his job, the next employer could not be made liable for the contributions on bonus which had been earned in another employment. I beg hon. Members to consider the very real complications. Sometimes bonus is paid at the end of a particular contract job. If a man goes to another employer and we are to spread all that bonus in order to provide for higher graduated contributions, we are penalising the employer who did not pay that bonus for the contributions in parallel for which he would be liable.
The hon. Member said that he has read the reports on this matter—I am sure he has—of the N.I.A.C., which has gone into it thoroughly. It came to the conclusion that, despite its reservations, there was no workable scheme under which bonuses could be operated other than payment of contributions at the tine the money was received in that

week or month. In general, therefore, the calculations are straightforward based on the pay period and the amount received. I assure the hon. Member there has been a considerable amount of common sense in dealing with these matters, for example, the stamp holiday scheme, and, also, that provision is made for occasional irregularity, the irregular pattern when a man going for a fortnight's holiday receives a three weeks' pay packet on the Friday when he goes.
The Regulations provide that deductions can be made for the three weeks separately, or they can be made under a three-weekly table so that it is balanced out as if he were receiving payment every Friday. There is the problem of Maundy Thursday payment where, technically, there may be two weeks' pay in one tax week, because the payment is made on the Thursday before Good Friday. Here again, common sense comes in and the contribution will be charged on each of the pay packets separately as if they were, in fact, paid in two separate tax weeks.
I hope that I have made these matters clearer than they are in the regulations. Taking the advice that we have received from the N.I.A.C. we have endeavoured to deal with practical problems in a sensible manner. At the same time, we have considered some things which may give rise to anomalies but where, nevertheless, if the anomalies were straightened out, matters would be made so complicated and unworkable that we have thought it desirable to stick to the normal arrangements for contribution in each week or month in which payment is received.
The hon. Member referred to Section 2 (3) of the Act, under which a yearly maximum figure may be prescribed. He raised the question of the sum of £13 10s. as against £14. The £14 is the limit, but he assessed the normal payment as £13 10s. and asked Why there was this discrepancy. There is a 10s gap, but to avoid a refund so unduly small in relation to the expense of arranging it, while, at the same time, ensuring that contributions retained count for benefit, the maximum in the Regulations has been fixed at £14. Therefore, any refundable excess over £13 10s. will always be at least 10s., while amounts between £13 10s. and £14


will be left as they stand in the contribution record and will count for benefit.

Mr. Ross: With due respect, that is not the point. There is nothing in the subsection which relates at all to a maximum. It merely states that
…where the graduated contributions paid by a person in respect of his remuneration from two or more employments in any income tax year exceed a prescribed amount the excess shall, for certain purposes be treated as contributions of the wrong class paid in error…
The prescribed amount is £13 10s. I do not say that what is being done is not common sense, but where is the legislative authority for doing it?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The qualification about refunds is imposed by virtue of Section 75 of the 1946 Act, which enable regulations to make provision for refunds, subject to conditions, or in relation to some but not all cases. The effect, therefore, is that there is no prescribed maximum for those who pay more than £13 10s, but less than £14. The excess in such cases stands as a valid graduated contribution and is not refundable. Had this provision not been made, refunds as low as 1d. would have had to be paid out year by year to people who might have paid a few coppers over the maximum contribution. I assure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that this matter was studied in great detail and is covered, and I believe that he was kind enough just now to suggest that it was a practical suggestion.
Similarly, there are arrangements, on a commonsense basis, for gratuities and tips, with which we could not otherwise cope, which are not channelled through the employer, who, obviously, cannot be expected to be responsible for contributions on amounts which he has no means of knowing.
There is special provision for certain types of profit-sharing schemes. Representations were made by the Industrial Co-Partnership Association to the Ministry and to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which recommended a certain adjustment in the draft Regulations, which the Minister accepted. Virtually, it means that special provision has been made for certain types of profit-sharing scheme where disbursements are made through trustees, and such payments are excluded from graduated pay-

ment liability provided, and only provided, that not more than two payments a year are ordinarily made to any one employee in a single tax year.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock also challenged Regulation 11 and spoke of possible abuses. He suggested that there was no right of appeal against the Minister's decision. I am happy to be able to correct him because there is a right of appeal to the High Court on points of law under the general Insurance Act.

Mr. Ross: Only on points of law?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am sorry, on points of law about contribution questions. I thank the hon. Member for his interjection which gave me an opportunity to correct a slip of the tongue.
The whole intention of the scheme is that the additional work involved in collection should be kept to a minimum. That is why it has been arranged through the machinery of P.A.Y.E. It has been made easier by the fact that all employees over 18 years of age will be assessed on the same graduated tables and there is no variation for age, or sex, or for those under or over 21. Therefore, it is a straightforward collection from all those between the ages of 18 and 70, or 65 for those who have retired.
The arrangements are such that the additional work for employers is kept to a minimum. There is only one extra column on the P.A.Y.E. deduction card, a column for recording the employee's share of the graduated contribution. The employer's share is precisely the same figure and the employer will pay over the money monthly to the collector of taxes, along with the tax deducted from the employee's pay, and show graduated contributions on the same end-of-year returns as the tax.
The graduated contribution entered on the P.A.Y.E. card, together with the employer's equivalent contribution, will be sent to the Inland Revenue, who will act as the Ministry's agent. The contribution so entered on the card will be recorded by the Ministry at Newcastle.
Because there has been some criticism about the expense involved, I should like briefly to refer to the manner in which the computer for this vast scheme will operate, and to the vast amount of information with which it will deal. The largest, and I think a unique, type of


computer is being installed at Newcastle. It will be capable of recording the contributions made by every contributor during the year. For the scientifically minded, it consists of about 130 miles of magnetic tape. Its capacity is such that it will be able to search through these 130 miles of tape to discover the contributions made by any person during the year.

Mr. Lawson: It is very interesting to hear about this machine, but some of us have points to raise to which we would like answers. If the right hon. Lady speaks until half-past eleven about the type of machinery being installed at Newcastle, we shall be denied the opportunity of putting those points.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I should have thought that if the hon. Gentleman wanted me to answer questions he would have jumped at the long opportunity I gave hon. Members before I started speaking, because I was anxious that all the questions should be asked before I rose to reply. There has been criticism of the mountains of work that this will entail, and I think that it is only fair to point out that we will be using the most modern machinery to carry out the work. This up-to-date machinery will enable us to cut down the number of people required to carry out the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman was critical about the graduated scheme generally, the vast amount of money to be collected, and the benefit to be drawn from it. The point he ignored was that the graduated pension scheme cannot be looked at in isolation. Concentration of the Exchequer supplement on the lower level of earnings makes it possible to reduce the minimum contributions for standard benefits, a policy with which I do not think any hon. Gentleman will disagree.
As a corollary of this process, there will be a gradual withdrawal of Exchequer supplement as earnings increase, so that for the individual contributor with earnings above £9 a week the return on the graduated contributions in isolation cannot be as good as the return on the minimum. I do not think that we must ignore the total contribution paid, and the total benefit received, by the combination of the flat rate scheme and the graduated scheme.
What is important—and certainly no one would have recognised it from the

speech made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock—is that for his own personal contributions, excluding those of his employer, every contributor, of whatever age, will get an excellent return. That is a fact which no hon. Gentleman can produce evidence to refute. In any case, the concept of an actuarial contribution for a young entrant of 16 or 18, paid through life until 65 to give him a specified and static rate of benefit, is hardly relevant in relation to a State scheme with improving standards. Rates of benefit do not remain static, and all existing contributors, and all pensioners, automatically gain by the fact that the pension rates do not remain static.

Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can find nothing about benefits in the Regulations. Is it in order, on this Prayer, to discuss the benefits in the scheme?

Mr. Speaker: I was listening to the right hon. Lady because I did not know if she was answering some points which had been made in my absence. I confess to a doubt at the moment. No doubt the right hon. Lady will bear the matter in mind.

Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Act from which these Regulations arise specifically makes no provision for raising benefits, although it makes provision for raising contributions, is the right hon. Lady not misleading the House by talking of benefits not being static when, in fact, they are static and require a new Act of Parliament to raise them?

Mr. Speaker: Time is short. I think that hon. Members should be careful not to raise points of order which are not points of order.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I should be le-lighted to answer the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), but, Mr. Speaker, I think that you were perfectly right in the advice you gave. We are going wide of the calculation of the assessment. I was led into the comments I made by the downright denunciation by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock of the benefits accruing from the scheme. It was to his comments that I was endeavouring to reply.
As I have no desire to prevent hon. Members from making other points, as now, apparently, they are proposing to do


—though I waited after the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had spoken in order to give them an opportunity to do so then—I will conclude by saying that I believe that these Regulations have been fully and thoroughly considered by the N.I.A.C. They were certainly carefully thought out before they were laid before the House. I believe that in their application they have been so planned as to provide for the anomalies inherent in our wage structure and, at the same time they are tempered with basic common sense. We believe that we have made the scheme as simple as possible, and we have done our best to make the collection as easy as possible for employers by linking it to the P.A.Y.E. scheme. I hope, therefore, that the House will not divide on this issue.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: Hon. Members on this side of the House are in the difficulty, in dealing with these Regulations, that they desire to see a good P.A.Y.E. or graduated pension scheme, which is something we brought forward a number of years ago. The good thing—it seems to me the only good thing—about the Regulations and the scheme of which they are part is that they lay down a basis on which something worth while may be built in the future. It might be said that some of the difficulties of developing a properly graduated pension scheme may be overcome on the basis of these Regulations, and in that sense we support them. But they are part of a scheme which is unfair and does not produce a graduated pension scheme which would be worth while for the contributor. Its primary purpose is the transferring from the Exchequer to the contributor the burden of the emerging deficit on the old-age pensions.
The right hon. Lady cannot, therefore, expect us to welcome the Regulations. We want to see regulations work out fairly so that on these things can be built something which is worth while. But we cannot look at what is behind the existing Regulations as other than an unfair scheme. Wherever there are difficulties the Government seem to have acted on the basis of unfairness. There was the difficulty about dealing with holiday payments, for example, where a person has a holiday payment in the

sense that in one week his wages from a single employer are doubled. That double amount is treated as the earnings for a week and he is charged on that basis. If his wages amount to £7, for example, and in a holiday week he is paid £14, he is treated as having earned £14 in that week.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I went to great pains to explain to the hon. Member that provision was made in the Regulations for holiday payments, and I gave an example on a three-week basis. If someone drew three weeks' pay for his holidays that amount would be staggered over the three weeks as general holiday payments.

Mr. Lawson: There is a difficulty where a man is employed by several employers over the year. These holiday payments are then left out altogether.

Sir S. Summers: I am sorry that I missed the early part of the hon. Member's speech. I hope that he will excuse me, but I had other discussions to attend. If an employee asks his employer to provide him with three weeks' money to enable him to live during his holiday, when he has no pay packets to collect, that is treated as if it had been paid over the three weeks. The illustration which the hon. Member gave was surely contrary to the facts.

Mr. Lawson: But it does not work in other cases, where there are difficulties. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), in Committee, drew attention to these difficulties. They are overcome by leaving the payment out altogether. In some cases, in which we want contributions to be paid to enable a man to build up his benefits, the scheme is so drawn that he does not pay them; or alternatively, he pays through the nose for benefits which are not commensurate with the contribution. In some cases we are seeking means by which a man can escape from paying a contribution.
There is also the treatment of bonus shares and other shares. For example, I.C.I. gives its employees, over a period, shares in the business. It is a common practice for many people to sell them and to treat them as income, but under the scheme they are not treated as income and they are left out altogether.


There is unfairness to many people under the scheme.
A vast machine is being built up when in some cases the benefits to be paid art triflng. The whole of this business is fantastic. For example, a person earning between £9 0s. 1d. and £9 5s. will pay 1d. a week and on this basis will take thirty-four years' steady contributions to earn a 6d. addition to his pension.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Does the hon. Member suggest that anybody will have his wages static at £9 a week for thirty-four years?

Mr. Lawson: There will be people just above the £9 rate, sometimes in the scheme and sometimes out of it. Sometimes they will have to pay a contribution and sometimes they will not. Many people are earning less than £9 a week. Sometimes, because of a bonus, they will receive more than £9 and will have to contribute. Provision is made to take 1d a week. If a person earns £9 5s. a week, he will have to pay for eight and a half years to earn an additional 6d. for his pension. Moreover, there is provision in the Bill for raising the price of a 6d. addition to the pension. It will be increased by 23 per cent. These figures will, therefore, be out of date in a short time.
Wherever there is a difficulty, equity suffers in the scheme, in the interests of simplicity, although the procedure is nevertheless so complicated that even the right hon. Lady found it difficult to explain what these Regulations would do.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: We were told in the White Paper presenting the Act What the contributions were to be, but in some cases the Regulations provide for a contribution of 20per cent. in excess of what we were told. I presume that the income which is to go into the scheme will be considerably greater than was estimated at the time.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (procedure)).

Question negatived.

Orders of the Day — MOTOR VEHICLES (DIESEL FUMES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Although the hour is somewhat late, I welcome the opportunity of raising the question of diesel fumes from motor vehicles, particularly lorries, if only because I have three of the busiest roads in London running through my constituency—the North Circular Road, the Great West Road, and the Cromwell Road extension—all of which are used extensively by heavy traffic.
In the time that I have been a Member of this House I have had many letters of complaint, and there is considerable public concern judging by the letters which appear in the Press from time to time. Besides the annoyance and the inconvenience of diesel fumes, there is a very real danger to road safety from them. Clouds of black, oily smoke pour from lorries, usually in the course of getting increased speed or extra power for hills.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown an interest in this subject. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) here, and if I am not too long I hope that he may catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. He has campaigned extensively on diesel fumes. I have studied some of the Parliamentary Answers over the past year on this subject; admittedly, not all of them come within the orbit of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I am forced to the conclusion a certain amount of stonewalling has taken place on some of them, and I would like to give one or two examples.
In reply to a question by Mr. Ernest Davies, then the hon. Member for Enfield, East, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works said, on 21st July, in answering for the Minister of Science:
…the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research…has made it perfectly clear that if the engines are properly maintained, as they should be, these excess fumes which we find so objectionable need not be produced: I am afraid that enforcement is not within the authority of my noble Friend.


Pressed further by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), he said:
The regulations are clear. If it can be shown that vehicles are emitting fumes which are dangerous there are powers to deal with them, but that is a matter for those who enforce the regulation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1047.]
On 29th July, the Home Secretary told the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) that figures for prosecutions for offences of this type were not available, although, he added, there had been 64 prosecutions in the Metropolitan area in the past year for emitting smoke, but there was no record of the types of vehicle involved.
Last November, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham suggested that to make the task of the courts simpler, the Construction and Use Regulations, which cover this matter, should be amended by adding a reference to "annoyance and inconvenience." The Minister of Transport said then that he would have that suggestion examined and that he was "going into the question carefully".
On 28th January this year, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that the existing powers were regarded by the police as reasonably satisfactory and that careful consideration was being given to the suggestion for amending the appropriate regulations. On 17th March last he told me that there were 72 prosecutions in the Metropolitan district in 1959, under the regulations, but that no record was kept of the types of vehicle concerned. He added that the police were anxious to enforce the law. On 20th March my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport told me that he was sure that vehicle owners and drivers were, in general, aware of the regulations and the penalties for breaking them. He said that he would certainly consider what further action he could take to give increased publicity to this matter.
There have been many other Questions on this subject, but I submit that while the offences still continue on an increasing scale the prosecutions are comparatively rare, considering the number of daily incidents that the, public and hon. Members, as motorists, come across. The emission of these diesel fumes causes

frustration and irritation to motorists, particularly those who drive for their livelihood. I am told that on any week day there are about 30,000 commercial travellers on the roads and, increasingly, they are having to cope with this problem.
They have sent in repeated protests to their professional organisation and they say that in winter they have to turn off the heaters in their cars when following some of these vehicles to prevent poisonous fumes being drawn into their cars. They say that they sometimes have to draw in to the side of the road after following such a vehicle, to get a much-needed breath of fresh air.
There is a safety aspect to this matter. Finding themselves enveloped in these fumes and smoke, many motorists are tempted to take a chance and pull out to overtake while "blind". On some of our roads, large lorries give little scope for that. It may be bad Highway Code practice, but it is human nature when one has been following a lorry emitting these fumes. I have seen dozens of examples of this as, I imagine, others also have, and I am quite sure that a number of accidents have resulted from it, although that cause is probably not shown in the statistics.
Like other hon. Members, I have had personal experience of following lorries discharging this smoke. Only a few weeks ago, I followed one for three-quarters of a mile in the Edgware district of North London. I sounded the horn of my car repeatedly, and eventually took my courage in both hands and got ahead. When I turned, I discovered that the lorry driver was laughing. It may be that he saw the red badge on the front of my ear—I do not know—but it was an annoying experience.
There are doubts as to the injuriousness of the fumes, and I believe that the Medical Research Council says that they do not necessarily contribute to lung cancer. I will not go further into that aspect tonight, although I cannot believe that the fumes do anybody any good. And I am quite certain that those who have had the experience of following a vehicle which is emitting these fumes have found afterwards that their cars are covered with black marks. Moreover, if the car is not cleaned fairly quickly, the stains corrode the bodywork.
The owners and drivers who service and maintain their vehicles properly suffer collectively from the bad name given to them by those who are too lax or too mean to do proper maintenance. An excellent example is set by London Transport. London Transport, as an authority, does not get much praise these days, but it deserves praise in this respect. It has its own servicing department, and all its vehicles are properly maintained. I have yet to see a London Transport bus letting out clouds of smoke. That applies to a large extent to London taxis, many of which are now diesel operated. The taxis, of course, are closely controlled by the Carriage Office of the Home Department, and can be stopped at any time and checked quite rigorously. As a result, very few of them emit diesel fumes.
I want to be constructive. I believe that the solution of the problem comes under four different headings. The first is the inescapable fact that correct and regular servicing can prevent the emission of black fumes. I am told that complete combustion must take place inside the engine if smoke is to be eliminated. All diesel vehicles, therefore, should be checked regularly.
Secondly, there is the adequate enforcement of the law. I appreciate that that is a matter for the police, but I suggest that the Ministry of Transport should take a more active interest in the matter, and that the Minister should seriously consider amending the Construction and Use Regulations to make them more effective. I do not think that they are very effective at present.
Thirdly, there should be more publicity on the need for proper servicing and also pointing out the dangers of committing an offence. As I have said, this has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend, in an Answer to a Parliamentary Question, but I have yet to hear of any publicity being embarked upon. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will mention this in his reply.
The fourth and, perhaps, most important point of all is that there should be more research into the problem. Several firms have produced filters and devices, and have contacted me since it was known that I had the good fortune to get this Adjournment debate. The Ministry should co-ordinate this re-

search. There may be a simple and easily-applied remedy, and it might help if my right hon. Friend were to get these people together and go into the whole question. I have been given details of one device in particular, and although I do not intend to mention the names of products in this debate, I will readily pass on this information to my hon. Friend if he is interested.
I do not favour the idea that exhaust pipes should go upwards and that fumes should go out of the top, rather than from the back or the side. I know that this practice is adopted on the Continent. The oily soot spirals upwards; it may not go into the faces of drivers following behind, but it has eventually to come down and I do not think that such a solution copes properly with the problem.
I have known the Parliamentary Secretary to be most helpful in response to inquiries that I have raised with him in the past on transport matters, and I hope that tonight he will be helpful in his reply. He owes it to the thousands of motorists who already have enough problems in coping with overcrowded roads to announce a real drive to eliminate this nuisance.
I believe that there may be a ray of hope somewhere in the future, because this weekend I read that on Saturday, at St. Albans, 14 lorry drivers and their employers were summoned for allowing vehicles to make excessive smoke on the M.1. The drivers were each fined £2 and the employers £5. Afterwards, a Hertfordshire police traffic inspector said:
This nuisance is particularly prevalent at the present time. It is especially dangerous on the motorway, where cars and lorries are travelling at a high speed.
Many of us have known that for a long time. That is perhaps a ray of hope, and perhaps the drive to which I have referred has already started.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) and congratulate him on bringing this important matter before the House even at this late hour.
There is not the slightest doubt that the trouble-makers in this respect are, by and large, lorries rather than buses, and I believe that many drivers cause


this nuisance on purpose. They alter the fuel injection setting. They even have a piece of string in the driver's cab to alter the governor on the fuel injection setting to push more oil into the engine. They do this because more power is produced if they push more oil into the engine. I am told that if the governor is altered when going up Shap, the time taken to climb Shap may be reduced by 25 minutes. Also, I believe that owners of lorries are sometimes a party to this practice. They are interested in speed, and not in economy, and they may encourage their drivers to take part in this practice.
One of the remedies for the public is to report such cases to owners or to transport managers of firms. I did that the other day on M.1. I passed a lorry, and immediately I made a face at the driver he stopped emitting smoke. I reported the matter to the transport manager when I got to London and the manager was highly delighted and said, "That is just what we have been waiting for."
The police must be more active than they have been in the past. A constituent of mine reported 97 cases in my constituency or round about it to the local police, but the police were unable to take any action because, they said, "We must have the evidence of two police officers in each case before taking action." They must take more action, but to make it easier for the police to take action I urge on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, once again, that we should alter the Construction and Use Regulations by adding the words "inconvenience and annoyance" to the words "damage and danger." I am sure that it would be possible to prosecute in these cases if those words were added. I cannot understand why it has taken the Government so long to make up their minds to make this small alteration to the Construction and Use Regulations.
I support my hon. Friend and hope that his initiative will mean that we shall have more action and some alteration in the law for the benefit of the public in due course.

11.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): On several occasions in recent years, the House has shown interest in that collection of problems which we classify under the heading of clean air, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) has tonight, in this short debate, raised one aspect of the topic. I am grateful to him for doing so, because he has thereby given me an opportunity to explain to the House the nature of the problem, the legal position, and what is being done to attempt to overcome it.
I imagine that we have all suffered from time to time, either as drivers or as pedestrians, from the diesel engine vehicle, perhaps a lorry, a bus or even a taxi, which suddenly, and often without warning, emits a cloud of dark smoke. I will explain, first, what I understand to be the reason for this happening. I am told that the cause of dark smoke from diesel engines is incomplete combustion of the fuel. This almost always arises from the poor maintenance or adjustment of the engine or improper use being made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) said, of an excess fuel device fitted to the engine. This device is intended to enable the engine to be started easily when cold.
As my hon. Friend explained, it is possible for a driver of such a vehicle to make use of this excess fuel device, which is controlled from the cab, to obtain extra fuel, for example, when climbing a hill. Similarly, if an engine itself is badly maintained, or wrongly adjusted, it may cause incomplete combustion of the fuel, and this leads to the emission of clouds of smoke.
Apart from the comparatively rare cases where the clouds of smoke are so dense that the view is obstructed, the great majority of complaints we receive relate to the objectionable colour and smell of the smoke. I must tell the House that the best scientific and medical advice available to us, based on long researches and investigations by the Medical Research Council, indicates that there is no immediate or long-term deleterious effect to be expected from such fumes. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick was not quite right in saying that these fumes are poisonous. They are unpleasant, but our advice is that they are not dangerous to health.
I come now to the legal position, to which both my hon. Friends referred. The question of emission of smoke and similar substances from vehicles is dealt with in two Regulations contained in the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, which were amended in 1957. The first one is Regulation 21, which requires every motor vehicle to be so constructed
that no avoidable smoke or visible vapour is emitted therefrom.
The second is Regulation 79, which is in these words:
No person shall use or permit to be used on a road any motor vehicle from which any smoke, visible vapour, grit, sparks, ashes, cinders or oily substance is emitted, if the emission thereof causes or is likely to cause damage to any property or injury to any person who is actually at the time or who reasonably may be expected on the road, or is likely to cause danger to any such person as aforesaid".
Prior to 1957, Regulation 79 provided that
the taking of any reasonable steps or the exercise of reasonable care
was a defence against prosecution under the Regulation. The amendment made in 1957 removed the necessity for proving that reasonable care to prevent the emission of smoke had not been taken. This Regulation, in its present form, is now somewhat easier to enforce than the old one was.
As my hon. Friends will have understood from my reading of Regulation 79, there are three types of situation arising from the emission of smoke or fumes which create a breach of the Regulation. The first is where damage is caused to any property. The second is where injury is caused to any person. The third is where danger is caused to any person. We are advised that, as things stand now, these legal powers are adequate to cover all cases which we are likely to meet.
It is suggested sometimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham did tonight, that we should include in the Regulation a reference to annoyance or inconvenience, or something of that kind. This is not the first time that my hon. Friend has made this suggestion. Lest he thinks that we are unduly lethargic in the Ministry of Transport, I mist tell him that we have gone a long was in discussing whether we could comply with his suggestion. We consulted

the police, and they were by no means unanimous as to whether the addition of words like that would help enforcement.
The main difficulty seems to be the inadequate nature of the evidence on which a prosecution can be founded and not any shortcoming in the wording of the Regulation. Nevertheless, I assure my hon. Friend that we will certainly continue to keep the point in mind, and it may be that in due course we shall wish to amend the Regulation. We must, however, be given latitude in keeping our eye on this problem.
I come next to the general question of enforcement. It would be quite wrong to say, as some people have said, that very few prosecutions take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick quoted a Parliamentary Answer given by my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department some months ago, in which it was stated that, in 1959, 72 persons were prosecuted in the Metropolitan Police district for offences against this Regulation. What the Answer did not say was that in addition to those prosecutions, 101 people were given written warnings for offences against the Regulation. In addition, a large number of other people received oral warnings from police officers on the spot at the time the offence was committed.
We do not have comparable figures for the rest of the country outside London. Until the beginning of this year, statistics were not kept in such a way as to allow separate figures to be given for the number of convictions against Regulation 79. Offences against this Regulation and those against a number of other Regulations in the Construction and Use Regulations were grouped together; they were not separated out. From the beginning of this year, however, it will be possible for us to give separate figures for offences under this Regulation and under Regulation 21. namely, offences involving the emission of smoke from motor vehicles.
The difficulty in bringing prosecutions is that the assessment of what constitutes an offence is largely a matter of individual judgment. As my hon. Friend said, in many of these cases it is difficult to secure the sort of evidence that will


fully satisfy a court. To aid enforcement, what we need is a simple and portable smoke-measuring instrument which will enable us to draw up a more exact Regulation and to make enforcement easier. We need some kind of mechanical Ringelmann chart which can be pointed at a vehicle when it is emitting smoke and which would give an immediate reading of the degree or volume of smoke that is coming out.
The Warren Spring laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has had this matter under consideration for some time. It has devised a measuring instrument, but it is suitable only for use in the laboratory or in the workshop. It is an expensive instrument and is not adaptable for use on the road. So far, the laboratory has been unable to suggest any way in which a simple and portable instrument of the kind I have mentioned could be produced.
Apart from the question of police prosecutions, education of drivers and operators of fleets of vehicles in correct driving and maintenance goes on all the time. Our vehicle examiners are constantly bringing the matter to the attention of drivers and operators. We meet with a ready response from them, because a not unimportant effect of more efficient operation of vehicles is a considerable saving in fuel costs. Every time that one sees a diesel lorry, for example, belching out clouds of black smoke, one can be sure that the operator is losing money because the vehicle is not being efficiently run.
We also have under consideration the possibility of requiring the control of the excess fuel device, which I have mentioned, to be placed out of reach of the driver's seat so that he cannot use it while the vehicle is in motion to get the extra power which, perhaps, he wants to climb a hill. If we can put it in some other part of the vehicle, perhaps under the bonnet, the driver can use it when starting the vehicle from cold, but not while it is running. We have that under consideration.
The Warren Spring Laboratory, which I have just mentioned, is already doing a good deal of research into methods of reducing diesel smoke once it has been formed and emitted from the exhaust, but this again is an extremely difficult

field of research. To date, it does not appear particularly promising. But in addition to this research being carried on by a Government Department, the Motor Industry Research Association has an atmospheric pollution panel composed of representatives from a very wide field of interested organisations, and M.I.R.A.'s atmospheric pollution panel has so far been principally concerned with the development of methods of measuring smoke from motor vehicles.
Further research is going on inside the industry itself on such diverse subjects as the influence of fuel from different sources, fuel additives, fuel injection equipment, design of engines, and the effect of efficient servicing and maintenance. The dominant idea behind all this section of research is to prevent the formation of pollutants rather than accepting them as something unavoidable which require removal by means of a purifier or filter device.
At the same time, research is going on in a number of foreign countries, particularly in the United States, where they have much the same problems as we have. With this research abroad Warren Spring Laboratory keeps in very close touch. The House may like to know that the Americans are meeting the same scientific problems, with apparently no greater success than we are, and that is, perhaps, a little comfort to us.
Frankly, I must tell the House that I am doubtful, and those who advise me are doubtful, whether any further or new line of research can be followed. The best hope of a solution of this problem of emission of smoke from diesel engines appears to be in continuing investigation along present lines. My hon. Friend mentioned a device which one hears about from time to time. We receive a very large number of devices; inventions and suggestions are made every year. Most of the people who put them forward make highly optimistic claims for them which, on investigation, we very seldom find to be justified, even in part. The fact is that up to date no satisfactory filter or burner has been devised. Nevertheless, in all these matters there is always a hope that something will be found fairly soon, and that a break through will take place.
I hope that what I have said tonight will make it clear to my hon. Friend and to the House as a whole that we are by no means complacent about this matter. It's a perplexing problem; it is a difficult problem. It involves not only research, but also exact legal definition of offences, the questions of enforcement, education, training, publicity, propaganda, and so on. Investigation and research are going on all the time. The legal powers to deal with offenders appear to us to be adequate at present. The police enforce the law wherever it is possible. We ourselves do all we can to educate drivers and owners of diesel engine vehicles in their proper maintenance.
I hope this debate will supplement and strengthen our attempts to bring home to drivers and owners that this anti-social practice—I think that we can justifiably call it that—is not only a wasteful practice, but is quite unnecessary. The de-

bate, I think, adds very strongly to the idea my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham mentioned, that the members of the public who have to put up with this nuisance, and who follow a vehicle which is emitting clouds of black smoke, should personally take matters into their own hands, and report to the owners of the vehicle that they saw that vehicle with that registration number at a certain time at a certain place emitting clouds of black smoke.
I am quite sure that in this way owners and operators of vehicles will be able to keep a much closer watch on what goes on. It is in the interest of everyone in the country that this annoying and troublesome nuisance on our roads should be disposed of as quickly as possible. That is something that everyone in Britain can do something about.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.